Pet peeve about Jackie Chan's fight scenes.....
zoe
Story about ten years and have been a fan ever since. One of my prized
possessions is a Jackie fight/stunt tape which I compiled myself and is over
two hours long.
After watching Martial Law last night, I was reminded of a pet peeve I have
with Jackie Chan's fight scenes - some sequences for a fight scene are sped
up (i.e. filmed at a lower frame rate) while others are not. My question
is - why do they do this?!?! Jackie and Sammo are naturally very fast and
don't need to have their fight scenes sped up. I have shown my fight tape
to many friends new to Jackie Chan and quite often they say "They're
speeding up the film." How do I explain to them that many times only some
sequences are "sped up" (example - the shots where a bad guy is kicked and
he goes twirling/spinning to the ground is often "sped up") - they just
won't buy it.
For those who think I'm seeing things, let me also add the "sped up" parts
seem to be only a few frames faster than normal and may not be as noticeable
as say the fight scenes in "Power Rangers" (now THAT"S sped up). I will
also give many examples if anyone doesn't believe me. For those who agree
with me - why do something that isn't necessary IMHO? Imagine a dance scene
with Gene Kelly that had sped up sequences.
Sped up or not, Jackie Chan's fight scenes takes the word "choreography" to
a new level. Perhaps I am being too critical....
Nathan
BGrant3373
The reason I heard (in an interview with Jackie) is they slow it down
(undercrank) so you can actually see what's happening, then when it's played at
regular speed it does look sped up, but you can see everything.
Bossk (R)
> For those who think I'm seeing things, let me also add the
> "sped up" parts seem to be only a few frames faster than
> normal and may not be as noticeable as say the fight
> scenes in "Power Rangers" (now THAT"S sped up). I will
> also give many examples if anyone doesn't believe me.
> For those who agree with me - why do something that
> isn't necessary IMHO?
Either because they don't share your opinion, or because they know something
you don't. I don't share your opinion - I love undercranking, when it's done
right, as it is most of the time - but there may still be another reason.
Here's a long and good explanation by Roy Horan, from an article called How
to Fight Your Way into Kung-Fu Movies, of somewhat unclear origin:
'Film is exposed while running through the camera gate in a
continuous row of separate and unique frames. Each frame
is a different picture in itself. Only when you put them
together and run them through a projector do you get the
illusion of movement. The average person talking or moving
about a room could be shown quite naturally while being
photographed by a camera with a film speed of 25 frames
per second. This is, incidentally, the speed at which most
video and television programs are projected. Watching
television you get a feeling of realism but you don't get a
"larger than life" impression. This is due both to the film
speed and the size of the screen.
'Film shot for theatrical release, on the other hand, is
usually shot and shown 24 frames per second (f.p.s.). To
make normal acting and speech look good on the screen,
one must speak clearly, move distinctly, and slow down
one's actions just enough to allow everything to register.
At the same time, you must not appear either mechanical
or methodical in anything you do or say. Each action must
be both natural and observable. You make yourself
"observable" by correctly angling your body toward the
camera lens. You become "Natural" on screen by making
every movement appear continuous without thinking about
continuity.
'Now what about fighting on film. If you must slow down to
act properly, then you probably have to slow down to fight
properly, right? The answer is yes and no.
'Let's suppose you are really as fast as lightning and can
execute a complete punch, out 1 and back, in 1/10 of a
second. If you were being filmed at 24 f.p.s., your punch
would take up 2.4 frames altogether (1/10 of 24). Since
this means you would take 1.2 frames to punch out and
1.2 frames to retract, you would already be into the second
frame when you made contact, and you'd be back in a
normal position by the third frame. In this blur of motion,
we would never see you hit your opponent. Upon close
examination of the three frames, all we would see is a
slight displacement of your elbow and forearm, the rest
being out of focus.
'Now suppose you get smart and decide to halt that
blinding fist briefly upon contact. Not an easy thing to do,
remember, for a highly trained killer. With the film still
running at 24 f.p.s., your 1/10 of a second punch --
including a fraction of a second to hold the punch at the
point of contact -- takes 3.4 frames: 1.2 frames to punch
out, one frame to hold and 1.2 frames to retract. Now
you've already used up the greater part of four frames,
or 1/6 of a second. Not bad; but you're a perfectionist,
aren't you? And the fact is most fighters will use up ten
frames of about 2/5 of a second to execute the entire
motion clearly. Even a novice could move faster by just
punching uniformly and without the extra acceleration.
So what's the solution to this mind-boggling problem?
Simple -- just start slowing the film down!
'With the film running along at the new rate of 20 f.p.s.
you can now apply your super l/l0-second punch, plus
register a hit, while using only one frame to retract --
a total of three frames. When this is played on a projector
at the normal 24 f.p.s. speed, your three-frame hit takes
only 1/8 of a second. Now you're not only a superstar,
you punch in the movies like a superstar! In truth, you
could have used seven frames to complete your punch,
which will still appear as a super 3/10 of a second punch
to the audience. For the best results, hold your strike for
1/10 of a second (two frames at 20 f.p.s.) so that the
audience doesn't have to work hard to see the hit.
'Most directors and fight choreographers in the Far East
shoot their kung-fu action sequences at 21 to 22 f.p.s.
This makes the action appear somewhat slower than it
would at 20 f.p.s., but it compensates by filling in the
extra details of body motion - which are just as important.
As a general rule, slowing down the film shooting speed
makes any motion appear faster but discontinuous, and
sometimes almost animated. (Remember the old Keystone
Kops films, shot at 18 f.p.s.?) It shouldn’t surprise you
to know that most of Bruce Lee's action sequences were
shot between 20 and 22 f.p.s. to speed up the action --
but then again that's show business!'
--- johan <wik...@mbox301.swipnet.se>
"HA! I'm not ANY kind of priest! I come from RUSSIA! I'm a FIGHTER!"
- Roy Horan, SNAKE IN THE EAGLE'S SHADOW, Hong Kong 1978 (English dub)
LoveGenHK
The reason for speeding up is very simple...it looks cooler (depending on how
its used of course).
If you are really that picky about the 'realism' then you should watch Vale
Tudo or UFC...not movies. Literally EVERYTHING about a movie fight is fake,
not just some tiny minor detail like the speed up effect.
Why speed-up? Think of why they have cinematography, why they have special
effects. Or even why they have a script.
Its about enterainment, not realism.
Simon Wyndham
<z...@autobahn.mb.ca> writes
>For those who think I'm seeing things, let me also add the "sped up" parts
>seem to be only a few frames faster than normal and may not be as noticeable
>as say the fight scenes in "Power Rangers" (now THAT"S sped up). I will
>also give many examples if anyone doesn't believe me. For those who agree
>with Gene Kelly that had sped up sequences.
All HK people use undercranking to speed up stuff. However, recently
Chan has not used it. It was aoided totally in Who Am I? Some said
that Chan was getting slow. Not the case. It was merely the absence of
undercranking, and as far as I am concerned it worked for the better.
However, undercranking is not just used for the sake of speeding up the
fight. If a person who is an experienced fighter punches at full speed,
the camera is not quick enough to get all of the movement. It might
miss the actual impact point of the punch. So the actors slow down
their movements for the camera. When this is done, as you can imagine,
the fight will be very slow to watch, and so undercranking can be used
to speed it back up again. Another issue is cleaness of movement. If
something is pulled off too fast, it may end up looking scrappy, or as
far as film is concerned, may not 'look' powerful enough.
Simon
Kick some butt!
The Bootmasters Homepage: Tan Tao Liang, Hwang Jang Lee, John Liu, Angela Mao
and more...
http://www.guarlfrd.demon.co.uk/index.htm
Now a member of the kung fu superstars web ring;
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Rampart/1081/Kung_Fu_Superstars.html
...Coming soon, CRITICAL Force, the amateur action film makers resource...
R. L. Strong
reasons, one esthetic and one practical. The esthetic reason is that it gives the action scenes a kinetic quality that live action cannot equal. The practical reason is one of
safety. It's much easier and less tiring to work at a slower pace that a full force and try to completely control your kicks and punches. Remember, these guys are making
movies and are not going all out. If they were to do so, no one would want to work with them, because it simple wouldn't be safe.
An example of this would be the numerous incidents that accrued during the filming of 'Cyborg' with Van Damme. Two stuntmen were injured on set due to Mr. Van Damme's lack of
control, one dues to a punch to the ribs and the other a knife attack which cut through the actors eyelid and bruised his cornea.
As for Gene Kelly (and Fred Astaire) not using undercranking during their dance scenes. I suggest you watch carefully 'Top Hat' and 'An American in Paris' both films use
numerous cinematic techniques to create a fluid and magical dance sequences. And that included undercranking.
Areles