Old Linn Haynes post

[teako170]

Figured while we we're waiting for his H2 disc to come out...

The thread title was "Blood Brothers (1973) - My half-ass opinion" started by poster named rudolph in May 2003.

Couple responses, including one by mahsingyi, and then Linn chimed in. Enjoy....

Linn1

Registered User

(5/14/03 8:31:00 am)

Reply

Well, since you mentioned me, I guess I have to talk about it. I can understand Mahsingyi’s point, as it seems that people marginalize these films because they are not as slick as more modern productions. I hope that I can do a good job of explaining why in this post.

First off, you're right, you can't defend the film purely as a kung fu film because it's not. It's more of a swordplay film that's on the way to being a kung fu film. This was a midpoint in the filmwork of Chang Cheh and his team where they moved from sword and arm swinging, to a more realistic approach to kung fu onscreen. This continued from Heroes Two forward. It's been said by people that worked with Chang, that he actually was not really "into" the filming of fight-scenes. Early on, Chang was more interested in the way his heroes were filmed and their interaction onscreen, than the actual fight sequences. It has to be remembered, Chang was the king of the swordplay film to start with, NOT the kung fu film. Blood and steel were all he had to show onscreen, so it made the filming of fights easier than the movement and technique of a martial arts scene. They simply sat the camera down and filmed the people fighting. Chang did improve this with innovations in camerawork (see below), but he did VERY little to change this style when he started making martial arts films. This was partly because of the urge from Liu Chia Liang to show the actors talent onscreen, and but more specifically to save time. Less cutting away from the action, meant less time was spent on camera setups and editing in the studio. Where a film made by someone else that wasn’t pushed by the studio to make so many films had more time to shoot and edit, Chang Cheh’s had probably about half that. More on this in a sec.

I’ll agree, if you're looking for a great fights, look elsewhere. BUT if you're looking for one of Cheng Cheh's better-directed films, this is one of them. The use of color, camerawork, acting, etc. are all VERY VERY good for a Chang Cheh film. Some would, and have, argued it was of his last great films as a "director." I don't know if I'd go that far, but overall it is one of his best films. Now as for his "insignificance,” wherever Tom read that, they didn’t know what they were talking about. Let’s go through the major reasons of his importance:

1. He started the male movement in HK cinema. Up until his film, One Armed Swordsman, HK filmmaking was built around FEMALE stars, not male actors. Dramas and musicals were the moneymakers at the HK box-office. As a matter of fact, every swordplay film made up to that point had to have a major actress in it and the male was always in more of a co-star role. With his swordplay films, he single-handedly changed the HK film system.

2. Introduction of talent. Chang Cheh discovered many of the most popular actors in HK film history. Here’s some examples: Leung Kar Yan (often credited to Sammo, but Chang discovered him and gave him his first few roles in film), Bruce Lee (Chang was the first person to contact Lee when he came to HK to make films. Chang had a deal made for Lee, but the Shaws wouldn’t pay Lee what he wanted.), Ti Lung, David Chiang, Fu Sheng, The Venoms, Chen Kuan Tai, Jimmy Wang Yu, Lo Lieh, he urged the Shaws to sign Liu Chia Laing, Tang Chia, etc. And I haven’t even talked about the directors!

3. Innovation. The use of multiple camera setups, experimental editing, and removing the camera from the tripod were all huge innovations in HK filmmaking. With these, Chang moved the Shaw Brothers away from the simple copying of Japanese samurai films and into the modern era. Also, his scripts often had more depth than many of his contemporaries, as he was a writer well before he was a director.

I know I’m forgetting some stuff, but these are the major points. The main problem was that he didn’t keep this up. He became such a moneymaker, that he had to make films as fast as he could, meaning that the craft of filmmaking took a backseat to making films. He DID keep having the knack to find talent, but pretty much everything else eroded over time. It’s like Bey Logan said in his book Hong Kong Action Cinema, had Chang made half the films he did, he would most likely be remembered as the best director in the history of HK acton film. Since he made nearly one hundred films, he stretched himself too thin, and the results were three ok films for every good one. It can easily be said that without him, the Shaw Brothers would not have been anything like what they became and the HK films may have been a LONG time from moving away from female centered films.

When comparing Blood Brothers to Twelve Gold Medallions, think of the modern martial art film for a sec. It went from the fight-scenes of Bruce Lee to that of the Venoms (or Yuen Woo Ping) in eight years. The films look like they are WAY further apart from one another than just eight years. Now think of the first modern swordplay film, Come Drink with Me, and compare that to swordplay films made eight years later. It's the same with the swordplay film, BUT the swordplay films were being made longer than the kung fu films at the studio. What this means is the swordplay film had a longer time to build up innovations at Shaw Brothers studios. They had been making swordplay films for six years when they made Twelve Gold Medallions; they had been making what would be considered modern kung fu films at the time of Blood Brothers for only two years (this can be argued up to three years tops). There’s no way that two years can equal the learning curve of six. More had been tried and proven over that time. Therefore a swordplay film would be more technically advanced than a kung fu film because they’ve learned all the tricks used to make it look better, they were just getting started on the kung fu film. If you then step even further outside the box of the studio, swordplay films had been made since the silent era, and kung fu films using real martial artists were made about forty years after that.

As I said, it took some time for Chang to move forward into the kung fu age. You have to also remember that Chang was THE money maker at Shaw Brothers, he had to make an INSANE amount of pictures every year, more than any other director there. As such, it made it very hard to have the time to make the fight-scenes much better than what they were, as he had to get the product out. But as he worked with Liu on the kung fu films, he learned to go with the flow of the action better and by the time of films like Shaolin Temple and Men from the Monastery, he started hitting his stride here. Some would argue that was because Liu took more of an on hand approach to the filmmaking from this point on. The best thing that could have happened to Chang was the Venoms, as the fighters and the fights lent themselves to film more than the approach that Liu was using. In the venoms case, you had life long martial artists that had trained together for years (well three of them anyway), so you have more options than a group of actors or martial artists with some training that have to learn to fight together. Everything would be more fluid, the fighting faster, etc.

Now to some of your questions:

"Having only seen one other SB film, Twelve Gold Medallions (1970), it was my logical conclusion that the choreography would be miles ahead of the 1970 Sammo Hung fight coordinated film. Not even close! The fighting looks much slower and isn't entertaining at all. Is this a fluke, or the standard at the time?"

It was a combination of a bunch of talented people more than anything else. You've got Ching Gong, one of the better directors the Shaw's had that could handle scripting and was an artist in his own right. He was into texture and meaning in his films, while Chang Cheh was often just trying to get the film in the can. His assistant on the film was one of the best people at the Shaw Brothers studios for planning camera setups. The cameraman was THE Shaw cameraman for filming fight-scenes. BTW, Sammo was NOT the fight choreographer for the film. He was an assistant on the Twelve Gold Medallions, not the main choreographer. He had this same role in many films, sometimes he got credit, sometimes not. Often he handled the stuntmen, while the choreographer planned the actual fights. The swordfights in the film are good, but it's more a result of the camerawork, wirework, special effects, and editing; it’s NOT skill of the fighters (as none were martial artist) or the fight choreographers in this case. There is no real swordplay at work here, but a combination of “magic palm” and sword tricks. If took all that away and just set the camera down and let them fight, as Chang did, it would not be better than the fights in Blood Brothers. The fighting in Blood Brothers is “real,” meaning slower, not sped up by flashy editing or undercranking. Though still rough, there is skill on display there.

"Lui Chia Liang and Tang Chia were considered the best choreographers at the time weren't they?"

In the mid to late 1960s, they were famed for their invention and attempt to bring "real" kung fu to the screen. By the early 70s, much of their style was copied and built upon by other fight directors, Sammo among them. By the late 70s, Liu was back at the top of his game as one of the best directors in HK and Tang Chia was working with Chor Yuen where he perfected his famous multiple weapon fight-scenes. The one problem early Shaw Brothers films will always have when compared to Golden Harvest, was Golden Harvest took the time to edit their films better and do more camera setups, which is why Golden Harvest films sometimes look more modern in comparison to Shaw films of the same time.

"Look at the end fight in Fist of Fury (1972), or the clips I've seen of Hapkido (1972), Way of the Dragon (1973), or Fighting Fists of Shanghai Joe (1972), it looks much better."

I don't know if that's a fair comparison, because of the different styles at work. Chang Cheh's films focused on showing what the people could do in a single shot. In the case of Blood Brothers, you're dealing with one real martial artist in Chen Kuan Tai, performing martial arts in a style he wasn't familiar with. David Chang and Ti Lung up until this point were mainly used in swordplay films. The Golden Harvest films you mentioned feature martial artists trained in the systems they are protraying (Sammo was sure to add real fighters to the mix in his films as opposed to the extras in the Shaw films), faster editing than most Chang Cheh films, and actors taking on fighters mainly one on one, as opposed the multiple attackers like in Blood Brothers. One on one fight-scenes tend to look better onscreen, as the performer gets a chance to really show his stuff without having to worry about what’s going on around them. Fighting Fist of Shanghai Joe is NOT a good kung fu movie, trust me on this. It's a rip-off of the TV series kung fu with some blood. It's a fun film, but there's not a comparison really.

“Logic now further makes me think that the work the two men did during the late 60's is laughable?”

As I’ve only tracked down one of their films from this time, I can only say that they were making some of the most inventive films of the time fight-wise. But if you looked at them with thoughts of Twelve Gold Medallions in your head, you’d be disappointed.

"The drama? The production values? The latter is excellent, no complaints. But the drama! Ching Li hides her feeling as well as a drunk. And what about the scene where Ti Lung jumps into the water to save her from drowning in a pool that's 30 cm deep!"

Chang Cheh was NEVER good at drama, in particular with women. There's a reason why he didn't have many women as major characters in his films, he just couldn't do it. He did hit on some good stuff in this film though: The scenes between David and Ching Li after he learns the truth, Ti Lung in damn near every scene after he betrays his brothers, etc.

"I want to say: "no offence Linn", but I'm sure you'll take this personally. You once said something to the effect of: the day I watch a film for the fighting is the day I..." So you've never seen a kung fu then, have you? Make sure you see what I'm saying here."

How my name comes up here, I don’t really know. I remember what you’re talking about though and my actual quote was, "the day I watch a film JUST for the fighting is the day….” First off, the idea that I’ve never seen a kung fu film (which I guess is what you mean here), is ludicrous and I’ll leave it at that. I still standby what I said. I used to seek out films just for the fights years ago, but once you've seen a few hundred films, you get a little jaded to it all. Today, I usually get a film for the stars or the director .If the fights are good, that’s cool, but it’s not my focus. That doesn't mean I don't like the fights or enjoy them, I just find it more interesting if the film has good fights AND a person I like or a good story. If I were just going to watch this stuff for the action, why would I bother? I'd just make tapes of all the action scenes and forget about ever watching the films. Some people do this, I’m just not one of them. I also think that flashy editing and wirework is a poor substitute for real talent onscreen, but I can watch a wire film with the best of them. I can watch very little made after the mid-90s though. That’s mainly because it’s so damn hard to tell what’s going on half the time.

"As far as I can tell, from watching just more than a third of the film, Ric Meyers was correct in stating that this film was just too "ambitious", or maybe early 70's films look like this?:

Meyer's is out of his mind, the film was made two times BEFORE this version. And in the past, he's praised it for being one of Chang Cheh’s better films. He’s hardly a person you should listen to for thoughts on these films, as his opinions change with whatever’s good for him. Nearly any person on this forum can tell you more than Meyers can on any given subject. The film is fine for the time, as a matter of fact, there's a lot of kung fu films made in the early 70s that look much worse than this, with bad acting and not even an attempt at fighting.

"Long live the best choreographer in the world, Sammo Hung!"

And also the one that's "borrowed" the most from Liu Chia Liang. Nearly every major innovation that Sammo is known for, Liu Chia Liang did first. Because the Shaw films have been locked away for all these years, no one knows that. Is Sammo the best? I don’t know if you can say that. As far as I’m concerned, there’s a top five and Liu, Yuen Woo Ping, and Sammo are in there. I like them for different reasons: Sammo’s edge, Yuen’s inventiveness, and Liu’s storytelling abilities with his fights. All of them are the best in these areas IMO.

"I am gonna get Iron Bodyguards next and also The Bastard, so that I can get a better idea of SB movies of 1973 before writing Chang Cheh off."

Don't do it, since both have poor fights if you're looking for fast choreography. The Bastard is particularly lacking fight-wise. If you’re looking for a better Chang Cheh film or fight film, take a look at Shaolin Temple instead.

Gung Fu Din Ying Sun

Take a look at my site: http://www.tombofdvd.com/linndex.htm

Edited by: Linn1 at: 5/14/03 8:56:01 am

[venoms5]

Great piece but got as far as FIGHTING FISTS OF SHANGHAI JOE (1974) and had to stop for a second. That guy (whoever the poster was) has got to be kidding. What an awful movie, that one. The gore gimmick being the only saving grace.

And skimming to the bottom I see the bit on IRON BODYGUARD (1973). Great, classy movie, IMO. I don't think the fights are bad. They are quite good and exciting. CKT taking on several guys while his girlfriend fixes his pigtail...classic. Some say the film is no good because of a lack of a good and strong villain. The movie wasn't about CKT against a kung fu bad guy. The movie was about the creation of the People's Republic and the Qing's struggle to remain in power. CKT and other patriots against the last remnants of a crumbling order. The Lu Ti Iron Fist character was simply an added attraction. I love this film and am probably the only defender of it. Brilliantly edited fight sequences as well.

Thank you again, Teak for posting another invaluable piece.

[venoms5]

Chang Cheh was NEVER good at drama, in particular with women. There's a reason why he didn't have many women as major characters in his films, he just couldn't do it. He did hit on some good stuff in this film though: The scenes between David and Ching Li after he learns the truth, Ti Lung in damn near every scene after he betrays his brothers, etc.

IMO, Cheh perfectly combined drama with both male and female performances as well as action with THE ASSASSIN (1967) a movie I feel is his greatest achievement. But as Linn says in this paragraph, Cheh did hit on some good male/female interaction from time to time.

[Morgoth Bauglir]

Thanks Teako:)

[gfanikf]

Thank you so much!

[Cognoscente]

On 4/9/2008 at 12:08 AM, teako170 said:

He became such a moneymaker, that he had to make films as fast as he could, meaning that the craft of filmmaking took a backseat to making films. He DID keep having the knack to find talent, but pretty much everything else eroded over time. It’s like Bey Logan said in his book Hong Kong Action Cinema, had Chang made half the films he did, he would most likely be remembered as the best director in the history of HK action film. Since he made nearly one hundred films, he stretched himself too thin, and the results were three ok films for every good one.

This is how I feel about Wong Jing.