I talked about the Raptors crossing the river before. Emphasis is placed on Bruce Lee's excessively strong muscle lines and movement speed, which objectively hinders the plot from generating ups and downs similar to the victory of the weak or the defeat of the weak . Thinking about it today, this angle can be an observation point, but it is too subjective after all. You have to allow others to have an aesthetic preference for the kind of indomitable and sweeping action. This post attempts to explore the misunderstandings of martial arts kung fu movies from a more objective perspective, taking "Dragon Fighting Tiger Fighting" as an example. The picture comes! Bruce Lee VS the most flexible fat man in history-Sammo Hung. Pay attention, during the fight, when two people are required to complete a prancing action, the camera will turn from the panoramic side to the panoramic longitudinal. Behind Bruce Lee, facing Sammo Hung. The result will inevitably lead to: Hong's flip, the audience sees it real. Not only is it done in one go under the long lens, but also because the face is facing the camera after the stop! Li's flip is the opposite. The whole process only blurs the face into the lens at the moment when the head is lifted up in the air, and it is still 90 degrees inverted... In fact, it is not necessary to describe it in such a detailed manner, or even those two screenshots, because action fans have long been It is clear why the incident is true: In this scene, Bruce Lee used a substitute-Fatty Hong’s junior, Yuan Hua!
But what I want to focus on here is not Li's use of a substitute, but why Li, as the number one superstar in the history of kung fu movies, used a substitute in the purely sense of action. This is not an ironic "stain." "? The answer seems to be conclusive: because in the eyes of many kung fu fans, churn is a juggling, not real kung fu! But in that case, why bother to repeatedly design some action shots that are replaced by substitutes? You can cut off the churn with confidence and just let Bruce Lee stand in the center of the screen. Then come one by one, one for two, one for two, one for a group! Obviously, there is a contradiction in understanding here! On the one hand, I look down on the tossing and jumping, and sneer at juggling moves that have nothing to do with real kung fu. On the other hand, for decades, the practice of martial arts with the core goal of strengthening the visual impact of the action has repeatedly proved: Without these tossing and jumping, it is absolutely impossible! Not only for the new generation of actress Chung Xintong who has no martial arts roots, it can't do without it. Even Bruce Lee, the world-recognized master of kung fu fighting, can't do without it! The fun is here. Originally Bruce Lee and Zhong Xintong belonged to two types of people who were absolutely irrelevant. However, in the action link that best reflects the huge difference, the two have an unexpected resonance: the most professional actor and the least professional actor actually need the same thing-a stand-in! Perhaps the word "substitute" alone is not enough to describe the level of fun. After all, there is a difference between doubles. The doubles of the golden gun and the throat are not the same as the doubles of the carp. But Li Zhong and Li Zhong need the same level of substitute. Somersault! It is hard to imagine this situation in other characteristic types. Hollywood musicals. Dorothy Day is good at singing, and the tracks in the film must have the original sound. If you change to a female star with poor singing skills, dubbing is the appropriate choice. But as you can imagine: the singing bridge in the film, just a certain section of the song, the difficulty does not need to be too high! But whether it is Dai who is good at singing or actress who is out of voice, do both of them need to do it for them behind the scenes? Obviously can't imagine. What about replacing the singing and Dorothy Day in the above question with dancing and Gene Kelly? Still can't imagine! But this is unimaginable. In China's martial arts kungfu film industry, not only has it become a reality, it is becoming more and more normal. So what causes this embarrassment? Personally, I still don’t know the essence of martial arts kung fu movies! Although martial arts movies and musicals belong to the same category-"specialties outside the mirror, showing inside the mirror". But there is a fundamental difference between the two: the professional level assessment of singing and dancing performances comes entirely from its sound and picture content. As long as the singer and dance performer defeats the camera and the microphone, everything is defeated. The action fighting scene in martial arts kungfu involves fighting between two or more people, so it is not enough to overcome the sound and picture. You must still defeat your opponent! But the latter point is unbearable for movies. Because only the opponent can feel the level of fighting, or the real strike power that can be exerted. A camera as a bystander, let alone a camera, even if you stand five meters outside the circle and see it with your own eyes, you may not be able to experience it. Otherwise, how can there be "diving cheating" in the professional boxing ring? This kind of camera's powerless interpretation will inevitably lead to the useless lens of a kung fu master like Bruce Lee. On the one hand, you can't really hurt the opponent actor, the hitting action must stop. On the other hand, the point-to-point performance, in principle, goes against the true essence of kung fu fighting-defeating the opponent in real combat. In other words, musical actors only need to perform to the camera to show all their professional talents, while true kungfu actors repeatedly do things that run counter to their professional talents in front of the camera. After realizing that this structural obstacle could not be completely overcome, Kung Fu movies had to turn to the action process (performance) to find a breakthrough! After all, compared with the unavoidable hypocritical result, the display of the process part can be relatively real, gorgeous, and exciting... Bruce Lee's action scenes must also be added tossing, which is the product of this thinking! And you carefully sample the logic: to join the tossing action, you need to use a substitute. In order to avoid the double exposure, the director must deliberately change the viewing angle of the camera. But this change is obviously passive and violates the laws of action aesthetics (if the action actor could have completed the action on his own, why should the camera change position?). But even so, we still have to do it! Why? Because no matter how high the risk is, it should be worth making the audience tolerate the monotony of the panoramic long mirror "stand on both feet and practice." Even if the opponents are the incomparable Bruce Lee and Sammo Hung, the head of the seven small fortunes. In this sense, in fact, the four words "kung fu actor" are extremely inaccurate. Its correct name should be: Kung Fu movie actor! For other movie types, there is no need to emphasize this difference in wording. Because the performance on the screen is the professional performance itself. If Dorothy Day’s songs are well sung, there should be no difference on the screen. So there is almost no difference between a song and dance star and a song and dance movie star. But Bruce Lee on the screen is definitely not Bruce Lee off the screen! Since Kung Fu movies are forced to turn to "process" to realize their value, the kind of talents who are more in line with "process interpretation" are naturally more suitable to become action movie stars. This group includes Jackie Chan, who can only gag and juggle, and Jet Li, who can only perform martial arts performances without actual combat skills... When we disdainfully comment on "only...only...", we completely ignore it. These "only skills" are precisely what martial arts kung fu movies are constantly overcoming their structural limitations and pursuing development and growth. Our disdain only comes from thinking about the problem by mistakenly equating Kung Fu itself with Kung Fu movies.
View more about Enter the Dragon reviews
