R4 Excerpts/Response- Rebecca Meekins

Anushka Zafar

In terms of touching upon the idea of Asian American masculinity, in David Richards’ article, he writes that “there is only one true god [of action films] and his name is Jackie Chan.” In relation to what we learnt from The Slanted Screen, Asian actors interviewed expressed that their domination in American action films is undermining because they are only chosen to play the villain or “the other”. Shu even refers to Frank Chin, who stated, “Good or bad, the stereotypical Asian is nothing as a man. At worst, the Asian-American is contemptible because he is womanly, effeminate, devoid of all the traditionally masculine qualities of originality, daring, physical courage, and creativity.”



Samantha McFadden

Similar to Lee, Chan’s body and what he does with it throughout the film represent Asian masculinity that is not usually depicted. Rather than displaying his body itself, the focus is put on the things that he is able to do with it – Chan leaps from tall buildings, uses common household objects as weapons, gets hit by cars, and still is able to get up and catch the bad guys. Yuan Shu argues that this allows audiences to view him as more manly. In doing all of his own stunts, he is showing that the Asian male is capable of great bodily feats. However, as with Lee, he must prove that he is masculine by being extremely adept at martial arts. Without this, he would appear to be the same bumbling, asexual character as any other Asian male in film.



Anna Malefatto

Furthermore, Chan “…humanizes the hero of the Kung Fu tragedy, whose rigidity might…be construed as stubborn, inhuman…confirming another aspect of Orientalist representation of Asians and Asian Americans” (5). This point fascinates me; I had never really thought of Jackie Chan as particularly masculine. However, he clearly is, as he does all his own stunt work and risks his life to make his films.
It seems that Bruce Lee certainly did what he intended, proving the masculinity and power of Chinese men and promoting national pride for his country. I think that Jackie Chan has taken this one step further and humanized the martial arts master in film, and I agree with Shu that Chan has done a good job of “…reconstructing masculinity” (6).


Alexa Ebert

As a whole, Chan tries to avoid confrontation and trouble, where as Lee likes to address and confront immediately. Chan merely gives in at time for example when he gives into the gangsters, and he also has the best fighting ability when he runs away from trouble. I interpret this as being less masculine and more cautious and cowardly. “Lee glorifies violence” where as Chan avoids it, shows two very different depictions of Asian American masculinity. Violence can be seen as a positive because you are fighting back, but avoiding it can be more peaceful. I think if there could be a happy medium of both, the Asian American masculine image would appeal to more people.


Jean Dao

Also of note is the fact that, although Kung Fu heroes have so-called universal appeal, this appeal really only applies to the men in minority groups. As shown in both Rumble in the Bronx and Enter the Dragon (and Rush Hour, as mentioned in Shu’s article), women – particularly Asian women – continue to be objectified: in Rumble in the Bronx, the women in the gang are viewed as playthings, and in Enter the Dragon, every woman on the island (excepting Han’s wife and daughters) serves only to provide pleasure for the men. In Shu’s words, there still exists a certain objectification of “young Asian women as passive, obedient, and eager to pamper any man, white or black, yellow or brown” (Shu, 8).


Both Rumble in the Bronx and Enter the Dragon are about changing the stereotype of Asian masculinity, or lack thereof. The differences in the two styles are clear, as pointed out by Alexa and Samantha. Where Jackie Chan takes more of a humanistic approach, “Lee glorifies violence”. Which method is more effective is debated. It seemed that the consensus with the class was that Jackie Chan’s character was much more relatable and more realistic. Also, the fact that Chan does all of his own stunts, and risks his life so often for the sake of his films says something about his character, as Anna and Sam point out. However, I think Jean has a good point about the effect and appeal of the Kung Fu films in society and that men and women will approach these films differently. Especially in regards to the objectification of many women in Kung Fu films as a means for men to feel more masculine. Kung Fu films speak much more to Asian men who struggle with issues of masculinity rather than women who do not have the same problem. However, in Jean’s response, she speaks of the role of women in the role, yet in Rush Hour and the excerpt from Hero that we watched, the women were shown as extremely powerful, and also had mastered the art of Kung Fu. It would be interesting to unpack those characters more as well.
In response to Anushka, I think it is very interesting the reference made to The Slanted Screen. Many men expressed anger due to the constant typecasting as villains. Not only this, but the assumption that all Asians can do Kung Fu is a result of the popularity of films like Enter the Dragon, which is ironic in itself because these films were made to counter another sort of stereotype/typecast; a lack of masculinity. Kung Fu films will remain popular due to the showcase of the magnificent art of martial arts, which Asian culture has seemed to master in order to overcome other “weaknesses”.