RUMBLE IN THE BRONX
A film review by Jeff Inman
Copyright 1996 Jeff Inman
Okay, this isn't really a review of RUMBLE IN THE BRONX. I mean, it's about that, but I'm more interested in reflecting for a moment on what Jackie Chan has done to the concept of "stunts".
Wait. Start over.
RUMBLE IN THE BRONX is the latest from the world's most popular action movie star. And he deserves to be the most popular. Not only is he a phenomenal gymnast and athlete, he also seems to be a nice guy, and his movies (the two I've seen) combine incredible stunts with a self-deprecating type of ironic humor that gives them depth.
Okay, that was my review. Go see the movie, you'll be glad you did.
And, while you're watching it, think about this: isn't it so much better to know that the stunts you're seeing are done by a guy who is really doing them? For me, it really changes the meaning of the action to know that what is shown on film is (in some way) something that Jackie Chan is actually doing. That they didn't cut to a guy in a studio strapped onto the top of a hovercraft as it simulates careening into a bus. (I presume they must have used SOME studio techniques, this being a technological art, after all. My point is that this is a revitalizing retake on the meaning of action on film.)
I'm reminded of Buster Keaton, who seems to me to have been a predecessor of Jackie Chan's. I think some professional reviewer proposed this connection. But I would've thought of it anyway. I just saw THE GENERAL a few weeks ago, and it was pointed out that one particular scene (in which a steam locomotive driven by Keaton rumbles past a watering tower which is gushing water, and it pours over Keaton as he zooms past in his beloved engine, catching him by surprise, drenching him completely ... he does the stone-faced blink of astonishment ... looks up into the sunny sky ... holds his hand out as though testing for rain) -- in that scene, Keaton is presumed to have broken his neck. Went through years of migraines, etc, etc. One day a doctor says to him (and of course this is verging on apocrypha as far as my retelling of it goes) says: I think the problem is ya got ya a fractured vertebra there. And Buster knew that it had been that scene that had done it.
Okay. Well.
The point is that there is a rare integrity and courage shown by these bold physical actors who do their own stunts on film. (Facade of a building falls over Keaton, who happens to be standing exactly in the place where a window in the wall makes a hole for him.)
That scene in GOLDENEYE with the motorcycle and the airplane -- you know what I'm talking about -- that was way cool. Way. But it was kind of marred by the obvious studio sequence towards the culmination of the stunt. Am I saying Pierce Brosnan should really ride a bike off of a -- that he should really DO that stunt? Well. It'd sure impress the hell out of me. But, no. Anyhow, the precursor to that stunt, which occurs in the movie POINT BREAK (excellent action movie, btw, I'll review it for ya some time) was a lot more convincing.
Oops. Got distracted, there.
The thing is that a Jackie Chan stunt can be less visually dramatic than something from a studio-intensive James Bond movie, and yet can end up being more impressive. It's because you don't have separate camera angles showing (1) Chan jumping from the top of a building, and (2) landing on a balcony across the way, making you think of stunt men leaping into an airbag in the first half, and leaping off a platform on the second take. The guy actually does it.
[NOTE: You can't really jump through a window holding onto a firehose, free fall for 50 feet while the hose comes taught, and swing back in through another window, three stories down. You can't even do it for a window one story down. Trust me.]
Don't take any of this as a disparagement of stunt men (and women). I think they're the real heros of most action movies, and I often try to pick out the reality that the stuntmen (stuntpersons) are dealing with, which must certainly be extremely intense, in many cases. I'm just saying that it is really refreshing to see someone making movies in which a single human being shows off his truly amazing athletic talents. One real Jackie Chan stunt is worth a hundred guys falling from heights with perfect rotation so to land unharmed on an off-camera air bag.
What we're seeing, for the first time in a long time, is what real physicality looks like. How bodies actually move. In a way, they look kind of awkward, compared with the smooth motions of synthetic action. But that makes them MORE believable, strangely enough. When you jump from mast to mast, across some sailboats, tipping the last one down to land on a bridge abutment, you're probably not going to look too graceful. Doing it at all is the feat. Chan brings the human body back to action movies, where it was supposed to be all along.
Way to go.
Check out the clips at the end, which show some of the stunts that went awry, (and sometimes with serious consequences).
-- Jeff Inman jti@santafe.edu
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews