Member robertobobson Posted July 18, 2012 Member Share Posted July 18, 2012 http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2012/jul/18/bruce-lee-films-black-audiences An interesting article reiterating an old viewpoint. Part of the lasting appeal of Bruce's films (and 70s kung-fu films in general) is their way of creating an empathetic feeling with the underdog in society - and not just to ethnic minorities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member Drunken Monk Posted July 19, 2012 Member Share Posted July 19, 2012 Interesting article. Thank you for posting it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member The Dragon Posted July 19, 2012 Member Share Posted July 19, 2012 Bruce Lee's cinematic presence was necessary for the world to learn that a celluloid hero doesn't have to be defined by The Man, he's simply representative of just that; Mankind. He fed hungry audiences, with a hunger for something real, that existed for generations, in a World predicated on Bull Shit; (White Man, White Hat, White Horse, Sunset, etc.) He kicked those adages on their proverbial asses! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member OpiumKungFuCracker Posted July 19, 2012 Member Share Posted July 19, 2012 Cliffnotes please?? I can't read... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member Drunken Monk Posted July 20, 2012 Member Share Posted July 20, 2012 Bruce Lee's cinematic presence was necessary for the world to learn that a celluloid hero doesn't have to be defined by The Man, he's simply representative of just that; Mankind. He fed hungry audiences, with a hunger for something real, that existed for generations, in a World predicated on Bull Shit; (White Man, White Hat, White Horse, Sunset, etc.) He kicked those adages on their proverbial asses! I'm not sure Bruce Lee had the influence many people think. Don't get me wrong, he's a cultural icon and his "underdog" characters surely suggested something a little deeper than the average hero, but, in all honesty, I think audiences were more amazed by his visceral screen presence than what he represented. Bruce Lee ushered a new wave of cinematic violence that wasn't car chases or gunshots. Nor was it "judo chops" to the neck. He represented raw, brute strength and the fact that the every day man could use his body as a weapon. I'm not sure race factored into it early on in Bruce's career, which is why I find the article interesting, but not necessarily true. Two years prior to Bruce Lee's "Enter the Dragon," black audiences got "Shaft," a blaxploitation flick with higher production values and a truly masculine and not so tongue-in-cheek hero. I enjoy the idea of him being a hero across the board, but I can't help but feel that Bruce Lee's influence has only now been recognize and that, years ago, he was simply a major box office draw because of entertainment value and not cultural representation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member TibetanWhiteCrane Posted July 20, 2012 Member Share Posted July 20, 2012 I always thought the same, the Blaxploitation "movement" was in full gear by the time that Bruce came on the US scene, from Sweet Sweetbacks Baaadaaass Song and on, there were already countless Black themed movies being made, including dominating black action heroes, and tough street characters. So why would a black US audience latch on to a skinny chinese guy as their new beacon of hope, when they already had Shaft, The Mack, Superfly, The Hammer, Black Godfather and so on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member Drunken Monk Posted July 20, 2012 Member Share Posted July 20, 2012 I always thought the same, the Blaxploitation "movement" was in full gear by the time that Bruce came on the US scene, from Sweet Sweetbacks Baaadaaass Song and on, there were already countless Black themed movies being made, including dominating black action heroes, and tough street characters. So why would a black US audience latch on to a skinny chinese guy as their new beacon of hope, when they already had Shaft, The Mack, Superfly, The Hammer, Black Godfather and so on? I think time plays a huge part in this, to be honest. When Blaxploitation films first burst onto the scene black movie goers found themselves will cool characters, macho heroes and badass mofos to enjoy. It was eye opening to say the least. Fast forward and today's academics see the stereotypes, the racial categorizing and all out offensiveness in Blaxsploitation films and yell, "RACISM!" despite the fact that it was a much loved genre of cinema in the 70's. Same with Bruce. Back then people want to watch his films because he kicked ass, not because he represented cultural struggled or a unified idea of an underdog. It's only now that people give Bruce these types of accolades and I just don't think it's reasonable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member xianzai Posted July 20, 2012 Member Share Posted July 20, 2012 I'm not African-American or old enough to have paid attention to the Bruce Lee phenomenon first-hand. I do think it's safe to say Bruce Lee became the symbol around the world for martial arts. His dying young meant there were no pictures of him old/fat to disrupt this image. The thin/muscular body he achieved also set him apart from people just playing tough guys. As for the appeal of HK movies over US blaxploitation, perhaps there was a suspicion that such films were made by "the Man" just to get money from African-American audiences. It's worth noting that HK Kung Fu films have an enduring appeal to this day, so perhaps they were more appealing to audiences back then than blaxploitation films. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member TibetanWhiteCrane Posted July 20, 2012 Member Share Posted July 20, 2012 The early Breakthrough titles were not made by "the man" like Sweetback, Shaft and Superfly. Though after that, it was pretty much white directors and producers in charge of the genre. I just wanna clarify, im not completely dismissing that BL had some kind of special appeal to black audiences, im just wondering how significant it was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member The Dragon Posted July 20, 2012 Member Share Posted July 20, 2012 I'm not African-American or old enough to have paid attention to the Bruce Lee phenomenon first-hand. I do think it's safe to say Bruce Lee became the symbol around the world for martial arts. His dying young meant there were no pictures of him old/fat to disrupt this image. The thin/muscular body he achieved also set him apart from people just playing tough guys. As for the appeal of HK movies over US blaxploitation, perhaps there was a suspicion that such films were made by "the Man" just to get money from African-American audiences. It's worth noting that HK Kung Fu films have an enduring appeal to this day, so perhaps they were more appealing to audiences back then than blaxploitation films. Point one, very true, also add the fact he wasn't around long enough for us to tire of him. His look, on cam, was an aesthetic that parlayed deeply into his charisma. As for point two, again, wholeheartedly, I agree. Kung Fu cinema has an enduring appeal of which I liken to nothing except maybe Westerns. With Westerns, no matter how dated, if the story is good, you look forward to the showdown, the gunfight. Same with Fu Films. Lee's appeal isn't new either. None of his contemporaries have had the lasting impression on their genre: not Jimmy Wang Yu, not Chen Sing, Ti Lung, David Chiang, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member Drunken Monk Posted July 20, 2012 Member Share Posted July 20, 2012 Lee's appeal isn't new either. None of his contemporaries have had the lasting impression on their genre: not Jimmy Wang Yu, not Chen Sing, Ti Lung, David Chiang, etc. The fact he had appeal goes without saying. He still does. I've known people who, in the 2000's, saw "Enter the Dragon" for the first time and thought Bruce was absolutely incredible. He was a unique performer without a doubt. But I suppose I'm a Bruce Lee devil's advocate. Not without reason, however. I do think he;s attributed with far too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member xianzai Posted July 20, 2012 Member Share Posted July 20, 2012 Point one, very true, also add the fact he wasn't around long enough for us to tire of him.Thanks, and agreed. Kind of like James Dean; both are frozen in time at their peak. Lee's appeal isn't new either. None of his contemporaries have had the lasting impression on their genre: not Jimmy Wang Yu, not Chen Sing, Ti Lung, David Chiang, etc. Google images: Gordon Liu 2,500,000 results Jackie Chan 53,500,000 results Bruce Lee 269,000,000 results Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member xianzai Posted July 20, 2012 Member Share Posted July 20, 2012 But I suppose I'm a Bruce Lee devil's advocate. Not without reason, however. I do think he;s attributed with far too much. He certainly wasn't around long enough to do that much himself. He made some movies & TV shows, created a martial arts style (or derivative of a style, if you prefer), and advocated a philosophy and certain training methods. But as a symbol, I think he had and continues to have much greater impact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.