I watched Blade Trinity this evening (which some might say was a mistake in itself) but one thing that really irritated me, as it always does, is the American way of directing fight scenes. In every fight scene, the camera zooms right in on the characters, usually rotating or jump cutting to different angles about once per second. The cinematography constantly obscures what the characters are actually doing. This is in contrast to the Hong Kong method of directing fight scenes (which was admittedly probably dictated by only being able to afford one camera per movie in the early days) where the camera is kept at a distance from the fighters to allow the viewer to follow the action. This is still evident in more modern movies like House of Flying Daggers. I can't understand why the American method is still used as it makes for poor fight scenes. It was particularly annoying in Batman Begins, I seem to remember, but it's totally unnecessary when you have actors like Wesley Snipes in Blade, who is a Tangsoodo black belt and quite capable of carrying a fight scene with his own abilities. Why not, if the role demands classical MA style fighting, either teach your lead actor to fight in a cinematically pleasing way (e.g. Keanu Reaves or Lawrence Fishburne for the Matrix; Chow Yun-Fat for Crouching Tiger) or get actors who can do it already (e.g. Bruce Lee, JCVD, Wesley Snipes etc). I can only guess that some people must prefer the American method of filming a fight scene. Do you? Just to clarify what I mean: American Method: Camera remains close in to both fighters (usually skipping between head shots and torso shots with occasional close ups of hands or feet); angle of shot changes either during or after each technique; frequent jump-cuts between angles and distances. Hong Kong Method: Camera frames the entire fighter with occasional close ups; camera usually pans rather than jump-cuts; close ups used for subtle or complex techniques (parries or joint locks); angles change infrequently.
My favourites are a combination of the two with plenty of camera angles but with the aim being to more thoroughly catalogue whats going on and with the use of soem CGI to make things look more believable. Recent examples that spring to mind would be 300 and the new Star Wars stuff. Having said this, house of flying daggers had more than it's fair share of CGI as well and I liked it to. Edit: While I'm thinking about it, I should add it's dependant on the feel of the scene as well, for grittier more frantic realistic stuff, the Hollywood style can lend an element of panic to whats going on.
Having a black belt and being able to do stunt choreography are two different skillsets. The best distinction, IMO, was Lucia Rjyker. She acts (kind of, anyway) and does stunt work. When she started out in stunt work, the folks behind the cameras always got on her case about "punching too fast" or in some way performing her MAs in a realistic manner the cameras couldn't capture. It was funny as hell, but also rather true. Think about it. Many of the major Asian actors have qualifications in performance wushu and two (or more) person sets. Many of them were trained in the Peking Opera, and learned fight choreography as opposed to pure martial arts. Others don't even know any martial arts (Maggie Cheung, Michelle Yeoh, Ziyi Zhang... they're all classically trained dancers!). They don't learn just forms or just sparring, they learn how to do it as a show; teaching someone a roundhouse kick on the mat for sparring is a lot different from teaching someone how to do a flashy, wire-assisted roundhouse kick which never actually connects with an opponent. Same with Keanu Reeves in "The Matrix"; Drew and Cameron in "Charlie's Angels" (Lucy Liu is an accomplished stick and knife fighter and had similar problems to Lucia Rjyker), Christian Bale in "Batman Begins", Halle Berry and Hugh Jackman in "XMen", etc . As a result the camera skips around in order to mask the transition between stunt double and actor. And the stuntmen in America are at least somewhat unionized, IIRC, which creates even more problems.
I like the HK style. Hollywood is too worried about using big name starts in all their action flicks even if they can't do much in the action sequences. The tight shots hide their uncoordinated awkward movements. It used to be better when they used stunt men for the action sequences but then Jackie Chan came over with his Rumble in the Bronx flick and all they kept saying in the adds is how he's the action star who does all his own stunts. He has a number 1 movie for however long and all of a sudden all these big stars have to do their own stunts even if it ruins the movie. Damn that Jackie Chan, ruined the action genre he did!
Generally I prefer to see the fight, so HK works for me. But there are always exceptions to the rule, like Casino Royale. The fight scene down the stairs had jumpy camera shots, close ups to show certain actions. You couldnt see all the explicit techniques but you knew what was going on. I very didnt like the bourne supremacy cause of the camera use though. Just as anything at all happened ther cameraman would have an epileptic fit and the POV was destoyed.
The "american method" works sometimes but most of the time its just annoying. I thought it worked quite well in the bourne movies, but in batman begins which wasn't supposed to have realistic fighting to start with it was plain annoying. I can't say I noticed it in blade 3 (that movie was cool just because Ryan Reynolds is hilarious)
Well, a couple of things. First, from what I have read, Wesley Snipes was phoning it in big time on that movie. He was out of shape, had a terrible attitude and made life incredibly hard on the set for everyone involved in every way possible. As a result, his fight scenes (scenes period) were edited in the most flattering way possible. I'd also add that the Hong Kong method isn't necessarily better. It's different. Fake looking Wushu or Wire Fu coreography is silly looking and utterly unimpressive to me. I'd much rather watch Batman Begins than what often amounts to gymnastics on a wire. Some are better than others. I prefer hollywood choreography, and can handle the jump cuts and close ups as long as they're well done and relatively seamless. For example, two of my favorite movies of all time: Bourne Identity and Bourne Supremacy. The former has jump cuts and very, very fast choreography and yet I really liked the fight scenes and consider them among the best in any movie ever. The latter spent so much time on close ups that I couldn't help but feel like I was being tricked by the director. Another good example is the newest James Bond movie. Great fight scenes in a somewhat traditional hollywood style. The Wachowski brothers in the Matrix trilogy were trying very hard to emulate the style of anime in a live action movie. They were going for frames and varying camera angles to simulate the often disjointed look of many anime cartoons. As such, I'd hesitate to put them in any particular category. They were trying something completely new. Ultimately, Hong Kong movies are, to me, like McDonalds coffee. While I don't believe they're the best coffee around, they're always at least the same. You know what to expect and you get it no matter where you are. Hong Kong movies are like that... never bad, but never really all that great and certainly not as good as a really good hollywood film. Some exceptions to be sure.
Watch Tom Yum Goong. Many of the scenese were flimed with one camera, following Tony Jaa for several mins while he beats the crap out of people.
FYI: Here's a whole litany of information on Snipes and the Blade: Trinity set. It's been so long that I'm not sure what sort of verifiable information is out there, but this stuff is along the lines of what I was reading just after that movie came out. http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-419462.html In reading your initial post again, I have to disagree with your description of the "American Style". When done well, with good actors and choreography, there is a mix of shots, some close, some medium and an occasional distance shot. There are cuts on action and the scenes are designed to edit together seamlessly. I would disagree that the "style" resembles in any way what you describe save for in bad movies with poor athletes and/or poor choreography.
If we are talking about fighting movies, or even just fight scenes in movies, legend of drunken master and fist of legend are both infinitely better than anything hollywood has made. and those two are just off the top of my head. As far as movies in general, that depends entirely on what you look for in a movie.
Those are two of the exceptions, but I wouldn't say either is "better" than anything Hollywood has made. Different, to be sure, but better is very subjective. And I'm just talking about the fight scenes. Maybe I'm the only one who doesn't think that Wushu is all that cool, and that Jet Li isn't the best MA actor ever. Personally, I prefer the Bruce Lee movie to the remake. Jackie Chan was really good in drunken master and that was a very original movie. I thought the Bourne Identity was a better movie, and the fight scenes, while much, much shorter, were far cooler in every possible way than the production number style fights in Drunken Master or any HK movie. In an HK Movie, all of the fights are too long, too farfetched and in all ways utterly ridiculous.
I prefer American movies for the acting, and Hong Kong ones for the action. I can barely stand watching a Hong Kong movie because my god asians cant act. Over acting to the max, but I guess they arent hired for their ability to suck you into the story line . Though, to be fair, American ma movies are pretty dismal acting wise aswell.
Guess we'll have to disagree, I don't watch movies to see things that are realistic. seems pointless to me. Give me Arnie with a pair of railguns or Jackie Chan using the fighting power of alcohol any day. Oh and the Bruce Lee original didn't have a patch on the remake. I'm sorry but Bruce Lee in that movie was just annoying and the fight scenes were so damn boring. Can only watch Bruce throw so many of those back/side kicks before you nod off. Not to mention that even for a chinese film his acting was awful
Um...what? You'd do well to define "stunt" before you continue to make absurdly incorrect claims about the state of modern action filmmaking.
LOL. I never said realistic, although I'd agree that the American style is more about hyper realism than a typical HK film, which IMO is more about pure fantasy. I like movies in which I can suspend disbelief... where they push reality, but not so far that I involuntarily snort with disgust. I am not saying that HK movies are bad. Ultimately, I'm saying that the descriptions and premise of this entire thread is skewed in an attempt to cast HK movies in a better light than deserved. They're different, more in my mind like a live action cartoon than a movie. I will say that movies like hero, flying daggers and other recent films have a beautiful sense of scope. Some of the scenes are works of art, fighting aside. Fair enough. It's a dated movie, but I liked the Bruce Lee movie. As I said, Jet Li is acrobatic and dynamic, but I don't think he's all that and a bag of chips.
That's a little extreme - I don't like the slow, obviously choreographed nature of a lot of HK fight scenes but I prefer the way that they're filmed as you can actually see what the characters are doing, whereas much of the time in Hollywood movies you just don't get to see what has occurred as it's obscured by the camerawork and editing.
I'm on the fence. I agree that the close and jumpy editing of American cinema leaves me feeling ripped off when it comes to fight sequences. The HK/Asian wide shot shows more but, a lot of times what it shows is excessive wire tricks and overly stylized forms (though I do still love the campy old kung fu movies of the 70s. I grew up on them.). I enjoyed the Bourne movies, their fighting seemed more gritty, less pretty but, again, you couldn't see half of it. Matrix, Crouching Tiger/Hidden Dragon, Kung Fu Hustle, House of Flying Daggers, etc. are very enjoyable and I am fine with well done wire-fu and even some CGI. As long as its used in a supporting manner and not as the mainstay. As for pure circus quality athletics movies like Ong Bak, The Protector, District B13, a handful of Jackie Chan movies are pure enjoyment. The story is secondary to the battle ballet. I go into those expecting to see exciting physical control and creativity. I equate it with going to see the ballet, ice skating or gymnastics. Its all about the action. However, movies like the Blade trilogy (I really enjoyed the first one but the two sequels left me cold), Batman Begins (again, really enjoyed this movie), etc are a conundrum. As part of their main story is a character who is some kind of fighting juggernaut and yet you see so very little of it. What you do see seems so overly scripted/choreographed that it loses all credibility. I am very tired of the villain that stands still 3 feet away with their hands at their waist waiting for the hero's spinning hook heel kick. Or the one that runs straight into the front snap kick. The list goes on and on.
Moosey, I went back and read the OP again. I think your position was pretty clearly stated. I'm open to the idea that you may have come across stonger than intended... happens to me all the time. But I don't see how it's possible after reading the OP to conclude other than that you believe the "American" style is all wrong and that HK movies are better.
