Foreign Policy in Focus - A Think Tank Without Walls
Foreign Policy In Focus

FPIF Commentary

The Geopolitics of Kung Fu Film

Paul Foster | February 8, 2007

Editor: John Feffer

Email this page to a friend

Comment on this article

Foreign Policy In Focus

Regardless of whether it had won four Oscars, none, or all ten for which it was nominated, Ang Lee's Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon broke down the door to the U.S. market several years ago and ushered in a host of great Chinese Kung Fu movies featuring swordsmanship, hand-to-hand combat, gymnastics, mystical energy forces, and fantastical battles in flight over rooftops, lakes and atop bamboo groves. The arrival of high production value Kung Fu movies was overdue. Western audiences had long been ready for this style of Chinese, Hong Kong, and Taiwan film, even if that critical mass was not apparent to Hollywood.

The international success of Crouching Tiger and its superstars fuels the popular image of an ascendant Chinese nation and enhances China's sense of cultural worth. In this digital age, a world-class power produces world-class movies. The kind of movies China has successfully sold to the world also reflects a certain set of Chinese values. Through these new Kung Fu movies, China emerges as dynamic, fast-paced, and disciplined, as well as Confucian in its devotion to a strict moral order. The movies also suggest a China that is not subservient to the West but somehow superior—capable of being a strong nation, a multiethnic empire, and an internationally dominant player.

Charlie Chan is no more. On the big screen, China not only speaks in its own voice, it kicks butt as well.

Hunger for the Exotic

The West's willing suspension of disbelief and hunger for an exotic China has been predicated on a long period of cultural conditioning. In the 1970s, David Carradine introduced television audiences to the martial magic of the Shaolin Temple, and Bruce Lee mesmerized moviegoers with unexcelled Kung Fu prowess. In the 1980s, the "force" of Star Wars spirituality was grounded in Chinese "qi," the very energy of the universe. Two decades of director Zhang Yimou's epic cinematography introduced audiences to grandiose Chinese geography, sans Kung Fu. Meanwhile, Jackie Chan pounced from Hong Kong to Hollywood with his hyper-energized Kung Fu, including his highly successful Rush Hour series with Chris Rock.

In 1997, when Chinese female Kung Fu movie great Crouching Tiger's protagonist Michelle Yeoh teamed up with Pierce Brosnan in the 007 adventure Tomorrow Never Dies, the Kung Fu stars themselves achieved global appeal. Riding the wave of Kung Fu action to challenge Hollywood at the box office have been not only China's movies and stars but also Chinese Kung Fu itself. The Hollywood action genre has assimilated the fighting and sword styles so popular with Chinese audiences. For instance, the first ten-minute chase scene of 007's recent blockbuster Casino Royale directly imitates Jackie Chan's Kung Fu fighting and chase style in punches, kicks, and assorted chase-related jumps and gymnastics. Thus has Hollywood been sinified.

Once freed from a strict Western sensibility of realism, American audiences can now enjoy the flight and fight of warriors who cling to walls and race over rooftops and lake surfaces. Chinese audiences immediately recognize these techniques as qinggong (light body Kung Fu) or neigong (internal Kung Fu power) and take for granted the rules regarding such Kung Fu training and use. American audiences might require some tutorials to recognize the deeper levels of such martial techniques. Digital imaging, however, has helped to redefine the surface-level reality and thus bring Hollywood that much closer to Hong Kong.

It remains to be seen if the more esoteric and fantastical elements of Chinese Kung Fu film, such as shooting qi energy beams from a fighter's palm, fingertips, or sword, will be equally well received by American audiences. This barrier to cultural sharing of Kung Fu has been challenged with some mild success by Stephan Chow's Shaolin Soccer and Kung Fu Hustle. Crouching Tiger showed the obvious potential of this genre of Chinese films in the Chinese language, and the rush to capitalize on this revelation produced other films like Zhang Yimou's Hero and House of Flying Daggers.

Behind the force of the Kung Fu is the force of the industry itself. The writers, directors, producers, technical experts, and stars form a "Kung Fu industrial complex" that is multilayered as well as horizontally and vertically integrated. This loosely knit organization capitalizes on the trajectory of individual works as they move from literary serial to television series to movies and post-production commercial items like computer games. It is somewhat analogous to the Disney Empire. TV and movie adaptations commonly serve as the springboard to stardom for young actors and actresses, like House of Flying Daggers star Andy Lau , who thereupon ride the wave of popularity with other advertisement, movie, and even musical careers.

The Kung Fu industrial complex has finally gone global as demand for its production techniques, stars, directors, and fighting styles has reached Hollywood over the last decade. A prime example is the opening chase scene of The Matrix in which Trinity runs horizontally on vertical walls. It is no coincidence that such signature "light body Kung Fu" action appears in The Matrix and its sequels, because these films employed Crouching Tiger's renowned action director, Yuen Wo-Ping. Chinese cultural values are further legitimized by the blockbuster earnings these films have garnered in the last half-decade, both in Asia and the West. This new success in the international marketplace—Crouching Tiger earned $128 million in the United States alone, and Hero earned $177 million at the box office worldwide—reinforces and reconfirms the Chinese national sense of cultural self-worth. Chinese Kung Fu really does finally "earn" its reputation as cultural "treasures" through which the global market begins to appreciate the essence of Chineseness.

Construction of Identity

Chinese consumption of popular martial arts literature accelerated in the latter half of the 20 th century with the serialization of Jin Yong's (and other writers') novels, which were immediately adapted for television series and movies. Their popular success was so great as to generate subsequent and multiple re-adaptations and spin-offs into comics, digital games, and other movie genres. Jin Yong's works transcend entertainment by performing the unconscious social function of constructing the nation. They map out the Chinese nation geographically, and the characters and their behavior become archetypical products that inform the national consciousness. For example, Jin Yong's final epic The Deer and the Cauldron, which was serialized from 1969 to 1972, provides a historically based fictional account of Qing imperial consolidation, intrigue and international conflict. The protagonist Wei Xiaobao colludes with Ming loyalists based in Taiwan, a pseudo-allegory of post-1949 PRC-Taiwan relations, and travels to Russia forming an alliance to thwart Wu Sangui's conspiracy to overthrow the Kangxi Emperor. Hero and Crouching Tiger perform the same mapping function as the characters traverse a vast space from western Xinjiang, to Beijing in the northeast, and south to Wudang Temple in central China.

This construction of national identity also involves a construction of ethnicity. Jin Yong's novels frequently turn on conflicts between ethnic groups struggling to dominate China. The cultural superiority of the Han—who make up a little more than 90% of the mainland's population—is ultimately reaffirmed through struggles for sacred Kung Fu texts, even if martial superiority on a dynastic scale is temporarily elusive. Works like The Eagle-Shooting Heroes and The Demi-Gods and Semi-Devils demonstrate both the breadth of China's ethnicities and the primacy of the Han.

In addition to helping fashion national and ethnic identity, the Kung Fu action also provides a complex vision of Chinese social values that reinforce and challenge the audience's view of China, ancient and modern. Cultural values such as Confucian respect for hierarchy, central authority, education, and virtue are entwined with swordsmanship that resembles calligraphy (and vice-versa), poetry recited while defeating foes, and loyalty to martial master and state. At the same time, the films counterpose these individual qualities of rectitude with national aspirations.

Hero's narrative, for instance, demonstrates the wisdom of a powerful ruler and his highly efficient military organization that can build a peaceful and prosperous "nation." On one hand, the individual's sword and Kung Fu prowess, like one's moral rectitude reflected by one's calligraphy, can overcome the massive destructive efficiency of orchestrated arrow strikes. On the other hand, the ruler is determined to assert the unity of "Our Country" (the English subtitle gloss) over the hero's thirst for righteous individual revenge. The fact that the Chinese gloss for "Our Country" (tianxia) literally reads as "all under heaven," creates space for a reading that points to China's rise as the preeminent 21st-century industrial power.

East Versus West?

Chinese Kung Fu narratives often propound the cultural superiority of the Chinese. In blatantly nationalist films such as Fist of Fury, Bruce Lee uses Chinese Kung Fu to defeat an entire Japanese karate school, thus showing the metaphorical superiority of the Chinese over the Japanese and other foreign imperialists in Shanghai in the early 1900s. This nationalist narrative is repeatedly re-performed in later Fist of Fury film adaptations starring Jackie Chan (1978), Stephen Chow (1991), and Jet Lee (1994), as well as a 28-part TV series with Donnie Yen in 1996.

China's superiority to the West is a common theme in crossover hits, particularly the films of Jackie Chan. Shanghai Noon, for example, juxtaposes a corrupt, violent, and mentally unstable wild West with a cultured Chinese princess and her loyal Imperial Guard, who personify moral integrity and decency in the effort to save her. Rush Hour portrays the honest and hardworking Hong Kong cop using his Kung Fu and his brains to outwit arrogant and bumbling FBI agents at every turn and ultimately rescue the diplomat's daughter. In Who Am I, Jackie's would-be CIA rescuers engage in high-tech villainy in their efforts to kill him to consummate their illicit $500 million nuclear weapons deal. In each of these movies, the well meaning Western partner serves as a foil for Jackie's loyalty, ingenuity, honesty, and bravery—the defining qualities of the Chinese hero who metaphorically, as well as literally, conquers the corrupt foreign world.

Hero and Crouching Tiger function on a subtler ideological plane to reaffirm Chinese values such as the centralization of state power and the loyalty of individual and clan to the state. In this way, they suggest a cultural cohesion not dependent upon the threat of Western nation states. A maturation of Chinese consciousness with the onset of the 21st century is indicated by a move away from obviously nationalist movies that reflect a China struggling with a 20th-century sense of inferiority to the West and toward an exploration of Chinese values and capabilities on their own terms.

The Western assimilation of elements of the "Kung Fu industrial complex" offers a corrective to previous notions of a weak China. By successfully exporting its stars, directors, styles, and Kung Fu (along with such attendant notions as chivalry and valor), China thus has a platform for expressing its values. By the same token, Western audiences may view a more positive and proactive (thus complex) China rather than blindly wallow in the paradigm of prejudice constructed during the semi-colonization of China during the 19th and early 20th centuries.

The Kung Fu Hustle Hustle

In the first four decades of the PRC, Chinese film production was tightly controlled for didactic propaganda purposes. Hong Kong was the center of film production in the Chinese-speaking world. With its entry into the WTO, China has gradually loosened proscriptions on the film industry. These changes coincide roughly with the success of the Taiwanese-made Crouching Tiger. Now, many of China's most talented directors have pursued formulas of blockbuster commercial success after the moneymaking potential of Kung Fu films was proven.

Directly drawing on Jin Yong's rich literary and film legacy, Stephen Chow's Kung Fu Hustle is an inspired caricature of Kung Fu film. Kung Fu Hustle won at least 21 awards and nominations in Hong Kong and Taiwan and was the highest-grossing foreign language film in North America in 2005. Kung Fu Hustle imagines a future for two of Jin Yong's two most famous martial lovers, Yang Guo and Xiao Longnü. As writer, director, and actor, Stephen Chow taps into mythic archetypical action styled by Bruce Lee and to characters created by Jin Yong. A high level of Kung Fu cultural literacy is mandatory to understand the rapid-fire inside jokes and allusions that permeate every scene, but the movie still appeals on the surface to the uninitiated.

Thus, the "hustle" of Kung Fu Hustle is Stephen Chow's demonstration that China can transcend more narrow issues of nationalism and national identity and fully embrace its own cultural forms. China no longer needs to make nationalist pronouncements about cultural subjugation in modern global society, thus serving to seal its rise in the 21 st century. China has become a producer of artistic and aesthetic culture, not just consumer products. It has moved up the manufacturing chain to create higher value-added cultural artifacts. As such, Kung Fu film nationalism—and internationalism—supplies both Chinese and foreign audiences with a muscular, mythologized view of Chinese martial and cultural prowess.

Paul Foster is Associate Professor of Chinese at Georgia Tech. His recent book is Ah Q Archaeology: Lu Xun, Ah Q, Ah Q Progeny and the National Character Discourse in Twentieth Century China (Lexington Press, 2006).

 

Subscribe to
World Beat

FPIF's weekly ezine


Support FPIF
Please donate your economic stimulus rebate to a progressive future.


Published by Foreign Policy In Focus (FPIF), a project of the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS, online at www.ips-dc.org). Copyright © 2008, Institute for Policy Studies.

Recommended citation:
Paul Foster, "The Geopolitics of Kung Fu Film," (Silver City, NM & Washington, DC: Foreign Policy In Focus, February 8, 2007).

Web location:
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/3980

Production Information:
Author(s): Paul Foster
Editor(s): John Feffer
Production: Nick Henry, IRC

Latest Comments & Conversation Area
Editor's Note: FPIF.org editors read and approve each comment. Comments are checked for content only; spelling and grammar errors are not corrected and comments that include vulgar language or libelous content are rejected.
 
Name arn Date: Feb 11, 2007
Paul Foster's article is enlightening--not for what it says about China, but what it unintentionally says about the American Empire and its own conceptions (or is that obsessions?) of China.

In particular, Foster tries to analyze nothing less than Chinese national identity and geopolitics based upon the "Kung Fu" film genre! He sounds as if he has been influenced by American academic fashions like Cultural Studies or postmodernism, which often involve similar grandiose intellectual pretensions.

Kung Fu movies are the equivalent of American McCrap culture like pro wrestling or Hollywood action flicks. They are about making profit at the box office and pandering to the lowest common denominator, which increasingly mimics the inane pop culture that America exports to the world.

To make sweeping generalizations about an essentialized China and its politics from this movie genre is like making grand pronouncements about America, its national identity, and geopolitics based upon the World Wrestling Foundation or the film oevre of Chuck Norris! I guess this is what passes for "scholarship" in American academia and think-tanks these days.

Even Foster's choice of Kung Fu as his subject is revealing, given that this topic entails one of America's favored stereotypes about China--much like how Ninjas, Karate masters, Geishas, et al. often dominate American stereotypes of Japan. This American "hunger for the exotic" Orient is an enduring, though somewhat pathetic, cultural taste.

Hell, there's even a term for this broader perspective: Orientalism. As Edward Said suggested, the American/Western intellectual class has historically tried to construct and define the identities and cultures of the "Orient" based upon an imperialist ideology in which the East is painted as an exotic, mysterious, or threatening "Other" to the West.

Unlike the old school Orientalists of the British empire who used more naked racial rhetoric, today's neo-Orientalists and intellectuals of the American Empire couch their pronouncements behind more a "progressive" political veneer. But at base, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

I suppose that one should be thankful that Foster and FPIF didn't offer an "analysis" of China based upon the Fortune Cookie and oh-so beloved Charlie Chan--which are actually quaint American cultural inventions like Stephin' Fetchit, the Taco Bell Chihuahua, and Tonto.

Name Yomi Date: Feb 13, 2007
What’s wrong with using Kung Fu for cultural analysis?

My remarks pertain to Arn's comment rather than to the article. For fair disclosure, I am a close colleague of Paul Foster’s and am likely biased in his favor. Yet Arn’s comment is sweeping, uninformed, unfair, and inconsistent.

Kung Fu is a genre that includes some of the worst crap I’ve seen, some of the most highly acclaimed works in film history (f.ex. Touch of Zen), and everything in between. Its popularity in all Chinese-speaking communities makes it a highly useful indicator of social norms and political aspirations. What would Arn use for an exclusive source of analysis? Doctored manifestoes by state leaders? Kunqu opera?

Arn does not explain what irks him about Cultural Studies or postmodernism and which strains within these prolific disciplines. Intellectual pretensions are rife in all fields.

I see nothing Orientalizing in using a highly popular genre – or is it Arn who isn’t aware of the martial arts’ popularity among low- and high-brow readers and spectators since the 1930s?

Finally, Arn references Edward Said against Foster’s position. Apart from the fact that Foster’s analysis is not Orientalist, it was Said who was accused of being too Cultural Studies-oriented (in some ways, his book invented Cultural Studies). Sharing Arn’s view that Said provides helpful insights, I come to the conclusion that Cultural Studies is here to stay – even through the words of those who blame it for the decline of the world since the fall of the Roman Empire.

Name arn Date: Feb 23, 2007
If you want to find some "sweeping," "unfair," (or somewhat grandiose) characterizations, look to Foster's article. He takes a handful of Kung Fu flicks and uses them to make sweeping generalizations about not only an essentialist Chinese identity but also geopolitics as well. That's the problem, among others.

As I said, would Americans make similar generalizations about USA national identity and geopolitics based on comparable American McCrap pablum like pro wrestling or Hollywood action flicks? For instance, what do the ring antics of The Rock or Arnold Schwartzenegger's crappy action movies say about the essential nature of American civilization and geopolitical ambitions? This is just a bit ridiculous.

Even one of the films mentioned in Foster's article, Crouching Tiger; Hidden Dragon, is problematic as a representative of "Chinese" identity and politics.

This film was an international co-production from corporations in America (Columbia Pictures and Sony USA), Taiwan, and China. It was significantly marketed and distributed by Sony. The movie was directed by Ang Lee, a Taiwanese guy who immigrated to America years ago, trained at NYU's Tisch film school, and who is integrated into the Hollywood industry (directing movies like Brokeback Mountain and Hulk). And the screenplay was written by an American (James Schamus) and 3 Chinese writers.

In short, Crouching Tiger reflects what the globalist/US corporate media thinks and portrays about China more than anything else.

Regarding Orientalism, the point is that American *consumption* of this Kung Fu genre is frequently based upon its "Hunger for the Exotic" (Foster's term), a defining attribute of Orientalism--just as those exotic Japanese Geishas and Ninjas are constructed in America's racist imagination.

Orientalism is also one imperialist ideology that the West/America uses to construct the very identity of the East as mysterious, exotic, threatening, etc. This perspective often infects the American intellectual class, just as surely as the pop culture consumer--although today it's often concealed behind a progressive mask.

In both cases, it's more about how America perceives, constructs, and depicts the cultures of its Oriental "Others"--not so much what this so-called Orient says about itself.

Name MH Date: Apr 22, 2007
This is a very interesting piece which has stimulated my thinking. Personally, I have read CTHD very differently from Hero. They are both "Chinese" but express quite different understandings of what Chinese can mean. http://mharrison.wordpress.com/2005/10/15/zhang-yimous-hero-and-the-globalization-of-propaganda/
Discussion for this article has been closed.
 
Contact FPIF's webmaster with inquiries regarding the functionality of this website.
Copyright © 2008, Institute for Policy Studies.
 

Support FPIF
Please donate your economic stimulus rebate to a progressive future.

You Might Also Like:
 

Related Coverage of Asia/Pacific

Musharraf's End: New Beginning?
Aug 22, 2008

Beyond Ping-Pong Diplomacy
Jul 30, 2008

The Abduction Narrative of Charles Robert Jenkins
Jul 3, 2008