Portrayal of Western Fighters - Huo Yuan Jia (2006) Discussion

Go Tech!
Congrats, your argument is sound, you have made all rebuttals moot. Excellent work.

reply

You mean they're not?
look in the mirror.

reply

"You mean they're not?
look in the mirror."

Was that supposed to actually mean something?

I agree completely with ramblin_wreck2003. The racist view of Westerners, and Western fighters in particular in this movie is appalling.

reply

[–] holyabdul 17 years ago

You are so ignorant and self-centered. Why don't you go look at some American made fight movies. The foreign fighters are portrayed the same way.

Look at some of those Jean Claud Van Damme movies. The Asian is always the monster who is always on the attack. Meanwhile Van Damme is the noble American who puts the mean Asians in their place.

It works both ways. Duh.

reply

[–] tonydomino 17 years ago

this is speculation, but i thought it may have been because of the conversation around the card table with Mita and the Europeans planning how to win the challenge against Yuan Jia. Mita made it sound like a sure thing, no sweat. so I would imagine the fighters decidedly were a bit impatient to beat Yuan Jia because they figured they couldn't lose. But that still makes the fighters look less-than-masterful if they could not keep their emotions under control.. particularly the spearman. the others, i felt did not get out of control. now that i think of it, i wonder if they each had bets placed for themselves to win and thats why they seemed less than patient to take the victory. as i said, speculation.

reply

[–] lacedemonians 16 years ago

In Jean Claude Van Damme's movies, he is always trained by an Asian master in the Asian tradition, and Asian martial arts culture is always positively portrayed. The mean Asian champion is always just one guy who exemplifies the most extreme image/stereotype of an Asiatic force of nature.

Illegitimus!

reply

[–] mawe-barrios 16 years ago

If I can remember, the thread starter already said that "This is not to say that the street does not go both ways, I freely admit that some American portrayals of Chinese and eastern cultures do not do them justice either."

Don't you read the complete post before commenting?

Duh.

reply

[–] lhamud 16 years ago

Well.....THEY ACTUALLY WERE RACIST! lol Colonialism was fueled by White Superiority Ideology as well as Christianity. And I could powerfully argue they still are racist, albeit more subtly and subconsciously, but also overtly as events of recent years have shown (and not shown-thanks to the media).

reply

[–] dlee473 16 years ago

Amen. Reading all these posts about the injustices imposed upon the noble white man is just unreal. And laughable.

reply

[–] Naijshua 15 years ago

Sorry if the truth hurts.

reply

[–] chase-caldwell 16 years ago

Way to be an ignorant overgeneralizing racist, asshat. Or do you know me and every other caucasian better than we do ourselves?

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] sigu828 16 years ago

you guys should check out the following Jet Li movies:

Born to Defend
http://imdb.com/title/tt0096507/
Dragon Fight
http://imdb.com/title/tt0095542/

Then you will know how nice the wrestler was portraited as, in comparison to the US soilders and gansters. Those earlier titles probably sold really well outside US.

reply

[–] ferox-1 17 years ago

oh you mean how Jet li was in the beginning of the movie... got ya..

reply

[–] vincent_lau2003 17 years ago

Americans are famed for portraying other ethnics without justice.
300 is a very good example, and most Americans love it.
The OP should check that out.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] nobguynes007-1 17 years ago

Bad example vincent, the Spartans were Greek not American. Also, even though it was Hollywoodized the story was based on miitary history. No matter how many Persians (Iranians) deny it they were a conqueror race period!

reply

[–] bbally81 17 years ago

"No matter how many Persians (Iranians) deny it they were a conqueror race period!"

So were the Spartans, I believe. Heck, I believe both Persians and Spartans were barbaric conqueror races. Then again, most cultures were like that, right?

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] theobservatory 16 years ago

Don't make the mistake of thinking 300 has anything to do with history! Jeez. It's a gross misrepresentation of 'miltary history' - the Thespian hoplites are largely ignored for example. Steven Pressfield's 'Gates of Fire' would have made a far better film. And there was far more to Persia than a few miltary tyrants. Wake up.

reply

[–] tim_cantebury 16 years ago

youre a moron. the film was never meant to be historically accurate.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] chase-caldwell 16 years ago

And you're a dumbass, it was in response to another post claiming its historical accuracy. Don't be so quick to spar tongues with another if you're just gonna be a useless waste of existence.

reply

[–] JZSquared0 11 years ago

It actually wasn't based on history, it was based on a comic book.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/300_(comics)

reply

[–] walugi 15 years ago

How stupid are the others who responded to vincent's post?

1. He means the portrayal of the Persians (ethnic) and opposed to the Spartans who were all white.

2. The Spartan shortcoming were all overshadowed, yet Xerxes was some bondage fetishist. As a person who's studied Persian history I can tell you that's not true. If anything, the Persians were more noble, and engaged in far less homosexual sex.

Next.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] coolaree 15 years ago

this has been said already; but maybe the 'western fighters' at the final competition simply had zero respect for Huo and thought he (and probably the entire Chinese people as well) to be vastly inferior to white people. (This was during the early 20th century).
When Huo (a Chinese guy who was shorter and skinnier then all of them) put up a fight and acted all arrogant (in their eyes) they got madder and madder...

Anyway there were plenty of "overly aggresive" Chinese fighters in this film as well...

Also its just a movie...No way could Jet Li have beaten O'Brien! Jeez that guy mas massive.

reply

[–] deltahost 11 years ago

^This. A thousand times this.

Ethnocentrism and Imperialism were alive and well in the late 19th and early 20th century. Kipling's whole, 'white man's burden' bs. That's not accusing caucasians of being racist, so much as accepting historical reality.

I personally thought the movie was quite fair in dealing with foreign cultures that have been traditionally portrayed in a negative light in Chinese cinema (the West and Japan). Both major foreign opponents that Huo faces show honour and comradery in the end, possessing humanistic values that transcend their individual national borders and social pressures. Alas, films that promote these values are a rare find nowadays. Meanwhile, I hear Optimus Prime and his Autobots are helping 'Merica police the world. :P

reply

[–] dannyjpopp 17 years ago

Agreed, but remember, the warrior from Japan wasn't like that, he was patient, respectful, and didn't lose his temper. That's why those manipulators of China chose him last. Because he was their best.

reply

[–] xdunder990 17 years ago

I don't think there is anything wrong with the portroyal of Western Fighters, I don't think they would be friendly with a "sick man of asia"(HuoYuanJia in this case) back then.

reply

[–] aribah 17 years ago

i doubt there was any intended rascism from the director, i think they just made the western fighters agressive to show off jet li's full fighting abilities and to show that he is leet.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] charleswright805 17 years ago

"I don't think there is anything wrong with the portroyal of Western Fighters, I don't think they would be friendly with a "sick man of asia"(HuoYuanJia in this case) back then."

No offence, but you missed the point. No one expects them to be 'friendly.' The problem with the portrayal is that these guys are supposed to be the best fighters their countries have, yet they are all portrayed as thugs who just rush in and attack with no defensive skills at all. A good fighter needs to do more than just attack. A good fighter also needs to know how to defend him/herself. By contrast, look at the Asian fighters in the movie. They are shown having a good balance of offense and defense.

"i doubt there was any intended rascism from the director"

Probably not, but a movie can send a discriminatory message even if it was unintentional.

reply

[–] baz_trinity 17 years ago

Its a movie. Jet Li was the hero and he made everyone he fought look stupid. That was the point. If you're offended, build a *beep* bridge and get over it.

reply

[–] charleswright805 17 years ago

Did you actually watch this film? Chen, Zhao and Tanaka all put up a decent fight against him. He did not "make them look stupid." They were all portrayed as good fighters who were able to do things like actually block/dodge attacks.

The Western fighters (supposed to be their countries elite) are portrayed as thugs who just rush in without any kind of tactics, thought or subtlety.

Oh and by the way, this is a movie discussion site. That means discussing what we didn't like about it as well as the good points.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] holyabdul 17 years ago

Let me make a reference to one of the most ridiculous movies of all time, Karate Kid 2.

Remember the white man going to Japan and beating some arrogant Japanese dude in front of his own people? Those Japanese people loved the white boy beating up one of their own. Save us great white man. Show us how to beat ourselves up with our own karate!

That Japanese guy was one aggressive Muthereffer, while Daniel-san was calm as hell. Did you complain about the portrayal of some Japanese guy as some brainless bully?

Did it occur to you that all Chinamen were supposed to be weak little yellow bastards that white men can crush with their thumbs in the movie? That is why the big men were fighting aggressively. They see this skinny yellow fellow that they should be able to knock over just by breathing on him, yet they can't touch him, so they get frustrated. It was not supposed to be an even fight. The Chinaman was supposed to be a huge underdog.

Also read up on Chinese History around the turn of the 20th Century. I doubt you know anything about it, but the movie accurately portrays the political situation.

reply

[–] charleswright805 17 years ago

So what, you're saying that just because he was Japanese (although actually he was Okinawan), that automatically means he MUST be better at Karate?

Martial arts, as with everything else, depends on the individual. The best is the person who studies hardest. Race makes no difference.

Of course they were cheering Daniel on. He was a good person; Chozen was a bad person. Again, race makes no difference. You're telling me that you'd be cheering on a thug who had threatened an innocent woman just because he had the same SKIN COLOUR as you? Besides, he wasn't 'beating Chozen up.' That entire fight, Chozen had the upper hand until Daniel used the drum technique.

Also, poor example. That movie had one Asian bad guy (two if you include Sato) and an entire cast of good virtuous Asian characters, including Mr Miyagi, one of the most beloved characters ever (who saves Daniel repeatedly throughout the trilogy. Kind of torpedoes the "Save us great white man" thing). Fearless did not have a single Westerner portrayed in a good way (true, O'brian does turn over a new leaf but that's only after Huo beats him, as opposed to him being 'good' from the start).

"Also read up on Chinese History around the turn of the 20th Century. I doubt you know anything about it, but the movie accurately portrays the political situation."

I do know the gist of it actually. What, you expect me to believe that ALL foreigners were bad? That ALL Westerners, every white man, woman and child, were all ruthless opportunists exploiting the Chinese? Sounds very narrow-minded to me.

reply

[–] holyabdul 17 years ago

KK II was set in japan, where there happens to be lots of japanese people, so there being lots of japanese on screen means nothing. On the other hand, Fearless is set in China, where there happens to be a lot of chinese people, and not many westerners. The few westerners who appear in the film happen to be challenging the indigenous chinese people to a fight where (as clearly stated in the film) they were seeking to demoralize the chinese once and for all, so it's no surprise that those who appear would be aggressive bully types. It is not that there are no good white people, it is that there are no white characters who sympathize with the chinese appearing in the film. If you haven't noticed, the one character who was portrayed as blatantly evil was the Japanese guy, an Asian, not a Westerner. The Westerners, including the fighters and the ambassadors, don't seem to be bad people per se. You even see white people applauding Huo on at the end.

Regarding the other point, it's not that daniel san beat up some japanese guy, it is that the japanese guy was portrayed as an arrogant muther effer too. You know why? Because he is supposed to be a guy the protagonist beats up and you're supposed to cheer when he gets beaten up! You, the audience, is supposed to sympathize with the protagonist. Guess what, Jet Li's character is the friggin protagonist in Fearless!

Think back to those bad Jean Claud Van Damme movies where he fights Asians. ALL of those guys were portrayed as despicable and vile villains who were all just about hurting people and nothing else.

Look, the point is that in almost every movie made by any country, the protagonist will appear in a good light, while his enemies, if they happen to be of another nationality, will be portrayed in a bad light. Even in United 93, the one German guy was portrayed as a chicken, the only guy to not want to fight the hijackers, while the Americans are the ones to be brave. Are you outraged about that?

reply

[–] charleswright805 17 years ago

"KK II was set in japan, where there happens to be lots of japanese people, so there being lots of japanese on screen means nothing."

No it wasn't. It was set in Okinawa. Second, I'd say the fact that Mr. Miyagi, Yuki and Kumeko were all major characters, all shown as good, decent people means something.

"The few westerners who appear in the film happen to be challenging the indigenous chinese people to a fight where (as clearly stated in the film) they were seeking to demoralize the chinese once and for all, so it's no surprise that those who appear would be aggressive bully types. It is not that there are no good white people, it is that there are no white characters who sympathize with the chinese appearing in the film."

Which sends the message that all white people are "seeking to demoralize the chinese once and for all" since we never see anything to suggest otherwise.

"Regarding the other point, it's not that daniel san beat up some japanese guy, it is that the japanese guy was portrayed as an arrogant muther effer too. You know why? Because he is supposed to be a guy the protagonist beats up and you're supposed to cheer when he gets beaten up!"

Precisely. So why were you claiming that the Okinawans should have been cheering on Chozen, the guy who held a knife to Kumeko's throat?

"Think back to those bad Jean Claud Van Damme movies where he fights Asians. ALL of those guys were portrayed as despicable and vile villains who were all just about hurting people and nothing else."

The only Jean Claud Van Damme movie I remember is 'Bloodsport.' Dux's beloved sensei and his wife were Asians and were portrayed in a very favourable light.

reply

[–] holyabdul 17 years ago

" No it wasn't. It was set in Okinawa. Second, I'd say the fact that Mr. Miyagi, Yuki and Kumeko were all major characters, all shown as good, decent people means something. "

Okinawa IS a part of Japan! What the hell is wrong with you?

Secondly, I see that you have missed the point totally again. If Fearless was set in a western nation, where there are many westerner civilians, surely there will be good westerner characters in the movie, but it is NOT.

" Which sends the message that all white people are "seeking to demoralize the chinese once and for all" since we never see anything to suggest otherwise. "

Once again, the few westerner characters who appear in the Fearless indeed are all representing their respective govts in China. They are all out for the interests of their countries. Again x2, the friggin film is set in China during a period in which foreign countries were carving up China and setting up spheres of influence there to protect their interests in the country. That's just history. That doesn't mean ALL westerners are evil, greedy bastards. Again x3, I don't see the portrayals of the western ambassadors as being evil. The only guy you could characterize as evil was that Japanese guy with the glasses.

" Precisely. So why were you claiming that the Okinawans should have been cheering on Chozen, the guy who held a knife to Kumeko's throat? "

Another ridiculous statement. I did not "claim" that. What I mean is that KK2 is the typical American-saves- another-country's-people-cuz-that-country's-people-are-too-weak-to-save-themselves movie.

At this pt, seeing the kind of clueless guy I am dealing with here, I won't waste any more time. My own stupidity for wasting time typing what I already have.

reply

[–] kissthis 16 years ago

lol you got pwned by holyabdul.

yeh i second that okinawa is part of japan. LEARN YOUR GEOGRAPHY.

peace.

reply

[–] kissthis 16 years ago

nice reply! ;) about time they quit talking about this nonsense.

reply

[–] bobjohnson994 16 years ago

Here is the explanation - it is not about Western Fighters, it is about arrogance, and how rushing in without a defense will lose you the match. Jet Li was not arrogant, so he won against the overconfident and impatient challengers. It has nothing to do with race.

Now you can all sleep easy :D

reply

[–] Jervis-1982 16 years ago

I agree, I think people read too much into things.

I saw it more along the lines of the whole "sickman of asia" thing. They expected to just come in and decimate him, and he cleanly handed their ass to each one of them, RESPECTFULLY and CALMLY.

It conveyed a message, stop getting all worked up on the race wars.

reply

[–] chriscall4 16 years ago

If you look at Jet Li at the beginning before he loses his family you see the same things that we are arguing about. Jet Li against most of the characters was offensive minded and attacked and only cared about beating his enemy. As the movie goes on he starts to see that its not about but it's about good sportsmanship. The scene that shows this is when Hercules OBrien and Jet li fight as Hercules is going over the edge Jet Li stops him from hitting the nails. When O Brien gets up he bows to Jet Li and in my opinion changes a little bit. What I'm trying to say is that in the beginning of the movie Jet Li is arrogant and does rush the defense. It's only after he loses everything that he realizes that the things he fought for were not the right things. The people that are saying this movie is racist in my opinion are the same type of people that say God Bless America. Not saying that is wrong but when are we gonna realize that we're no different than anybody else. Everybody in the world is the same. It just astounds me that people cannot realize that. This was one of my favorite movies scene in the last couple years, followed very closely by Letters from Iwo Jima.

reply

[–] kissthis 16 years ago

but that's what everyone around the world think of western fighters. true story. blame it on tv, movies and media.

also, refer to the poster who said something about speculation.

well you've already said it yourself, the people behind the movie probably might've NOT intended to send a discriminatory message, let that fact sit in your head for awhile, accept it, and start a new topic.

cheers.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] lmurray3-2 17 years ago

Yeah, but back then with all that racism and "Chinese are the sick men of asia" crap and well, all of it hyped those guys up with so much testosterone, the same exact thing happened earlier in America's history, at a place called "Little Big Horn".

I mean, I hate the way custard was portrayed too, but hey people who fight dig their own grave.

reply

[–] GodandWin 17 years ago

Good post.

However, there could be a simple reason behind it aswell.

Myself I'd think the pikeman was a swiss mercenary - very famous for their prowess but also for unrelenting, bordering stupid assaults. Also, a pike is not a very good weapon to defend with as a western fighter, remember they do not train the same techniques at all as the chinese warriors.
I dare say the pikeman was a soldier first and foremost, not a duelist.

The fencer was using a rapier. I can't recall if he had a main-gauche aswell, but if he didn't the rapier is not very good for defense against a weapon such as the sword used by Hou.
Also, fencing is per se a fairly offensive way of fighting, isn't it?
I'm aware of ripostes and various counterattacks, but Hou was not using a rapier nor was he using fencing-techniques, rendering most of these moves useless. His footwork was very lacking though.

The brawler, well - he was the bigger man so I guess he just went for it.

I'm by no means an expert by the way.

reply

[–] hollankreil 17 years ago

My only real complaint would be their lack of discipline and ignoring of defense. It would have been nice to see them visibly try to adjust to their opponent's tactics instead of getting angry, in spite of the fact they are supposed to be the best from their nations. Basically they fought more often like easily annoyed brats rather than controlled masters of fighting.

"You're from the 60s! Peace love dope! Back, back to the 60s! No place for you in the future!"

reply

[–] taijiquan12 17 years ago

Has anyone considered the fact that Huo defeats the Western fighters faster in the movie because those fights were not as important to the storyline? The last person he fought in real life was Japanese, and the movie needed to move to the climax quickly as this movie was biographical.
Everyone keeps talking about how the fighters don't use defensive tactics and whatnot, but the only case I can think of where this happens to a major degree is with Huo fighting the spearman. The boxer was offensive, yes, but Huo overwhelmed the boxer with his speed and (to the boxer) unfamiliar attack angles, but I never remember the boxer going as crazy as the spearman. As for Hercules 'O Brien, I've fought big dudes myself and I have to say that they are often cocky and headstrong because of their perceived advantage. And who can blame Nathan Jones' character? He's massive in comparison! You're really going to tell me that it was stupid that a strongman, who was NOT a trained fighter was supposed to use high level martial tactics? On to the fencer. At this point in history, fencing as an actual method in combat was on it's way to becoming outmoded and developing into more of the sport that we see today. Considering this, the fencer had probably trained against other fencers and was used to fencing rules with his opponents moving in certain ways he was used to. However, I can't really recall the fencer getting really mad, either. I mean did you even watch the same scene as I did? Because when I saw Huo fight the fencer, I saw a rapid exchange of many attacks and counterattacks. The fencer grunted once, but other than that showed no undue agression. His movements were good and he DID use counterattacks but he was defeated because Huo changed his pace, angle and targets, which the fencer didn't expect, so he was eventually disarmed, but he didn't freak out like the spearman. The spearman was the only Western warrior in this movie to show an inappropriate amount of agression and anger, and it was played to comedic effect.
Add to all of that the fact that all of the Western warriors realistically would have most likely had a racist view of Huo and a preconceived notion about his skill based on that racism (which explains their offensive tactics and frustration) and the presentation of the Western warriors becomes clearer. I'm not entirely counting out the fact that there might have been racism on the filmmakers behalf to make the Western warriors look stupid, because it wouldn't be the first time, but before you get self righteous, look at American and Western film history and take into account the copious amount of racism and poor portrayals of other races/ethnic groups. It happens all over the world in all entertainment to some degree whenever other cultures are repped. It's just how things tend to be. It sucks, yes, but patriotism and the latent racism in all of us can manifest itself in entertainment, but unless it's truly offensive (which this film wasn't), it's best to just let things slide.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mr_lee_lives 16 years ago

"Remember the white man going to Japan and beating some arrogant Japanese dude in front of his own people? Those Japanese people loved the white boy beating up one of their own. Save us great white man. Show us how to beat ourselves up with our own karate!"
ha ha-- i was creasing when i read that. think abt 'The Last Samurai' too what a joke. big up abdul

and please mr 'charleswright':
"What, you expect me to believe that ALL foreigners were bad? That ALL Westerners, every white man, woman and child, were all ruthless opportunists exploiting the Chinese? Sounds very narrow-minded to me."

--read up on the opium war. u might learn something. and dont be going on how 'not every white woman & child' would have been against the Chinese (which they blatantly were anyways)
U kno deep down u started this thread cos watching a white guy getting bashed ups gotten u feeling all insecure & 'misrepresented'. It's a chinese flick so did u expect Jet Li to get mashed up by a white guy? I can hear u know thinking 2 urself 'at least he could've put up a better fight' ha ha.
'Misrepresentation' happens in films ALL DAY LONG-- nothings gna change that.

end of the day, war is a MAN THING.
how many women & children can u name that started a war?

peace & love

www.myspace.com/xprs_yrslf
www.myspace.com/adlib_designs

reply

[–] akira_2108 16 years ago

War is not a 'man' thing.

http://www.heretical.com/sheppard/hflttww.html
http://www.mens-network.org/whitefeather.html

Golda Meir, wars with Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq. Magaret Thatcher Falklands War. Indira Ghandi destruction of the Sikh Golden Temple in Punjab Province. Just a few examples. Damn Feminists are real stupid. Power and its use is not limited to Males. Ancient grave mounds in Central Asia shows that the Sycthian Women lead their Men into battle. They were burried with Weapons in battle dress and died from Wounds in Battle. Then there is the Ptolemys of Ancient Egypt descendants of Alexander the Great. Cleopatra being the most notable.
Don't forget Elizabeth Bathory the Blood Countess. One of History's most prolific Serial Killers and Sexual Sadists. Queen Bootica the Celetic Queen who revolted against the Romans. Who we get the term booty from. She was a red head and if accurate a ferocious and blood thirsty War Chieftan of the Celts.

If you google for "White Feather Feminism" you will find that the Pankhursts and other feminists were "employed" by the government at the time to improve "recruitement" for cannon fodder in the WWI trenches. The Pankhursts (Emeline and her daughter Christabel) were the leading feminists in early twentieth century England. A white feather was given to any young men who were not involved in active military service as a sign that they were "chicken" (a term used in England for a coward). The idea was beneficial for the government who required more soldiers, but also beneficial for the feminists because it removed men from jobs to go fight in the trenches thereby leaving those jobs free for women to take. The feminists advertised that it would allow women to take mens' jobs. The minimum age for the miltary was 16 at the time, but in practise they averaged a couple of years older than this if possible initially (until they ran out of young men). In quite a few cases 14 year old boys joined the army illegally, because the women told them they were cowards for not going to war to protect their womenfolk. Children don't start wars? I don't disagree with that

Now hopefully you are a tad less foolish and ignorant than you were before. Now get yourself over to http://www.the-niceguy.com/forum and register (its free) and join our brotherhood to learn some more truths.

Peace

Akira2108

www.angryharry.com

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] agent2009 16 years ago

If you feel happy about white people beating up, or killing, asian guys go see something like:

Kickboxer
Nomad: The Warrior
Year of the Dragon
Kill Bill
Lionheart
Alias
Elektra
Death Warrant
Into the Sun
Lethal Weapon 4
DOA Dead or Alive
Crank
Romper Stomper
You Only Live Twice

etc..

...
I'm rich and divorced

reply