One of my favorite "Every Frame a Painting" videos is on Jackie Chan. If you haven't seen it be warned, it will ruin your view of almost all modern action fight scenes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1PCtIaM_GQ
I love that video (and all of the other videos from that channel). Fortunately for me I already hated most modern action scenes from years of watching Jackie and other Hong Kong film greats.
There are a few decent fight scenes that happen from time to time in modern action films. Haywire is really good, for one.
His thoughts on editing were very insightful. I do think his fight scenes do border on being silly at times, but his attention to detail and rehearsal is amazing.
> The film's title was supposed to be Meals on Wheels. Superstitious Golden Harvest executives however demanded the title change because their two previous films with titles began with the letter 'M' – Megaforce and Menage A Trois – were both box office flops.
Hwang Jang-Lee is probably better, and has had more of an impact. In Jackie's older films, he plays many of the villains, and he is the one behind the iconic Silver Fox villains like pai mei that Tarantino lifted for Kill Bill.
It's not magic at all. I don't think people realize that it looks so impressive because it's undercranked; it's shot more slowly so the action is sped up.
They are't moving that fast in real life at all. Camera trick.
Some Chinese kung fu movies do this. Not all. Jackie tends not to do this as far as I know. I'm looking at this one and I don't think it's undercranked.
That’s also what gave us Fawlty Towers (sitcom, 2 series of 6 episodes, each of which took weeks to write) and Fred Astaire looking an even better dancer than he was (edit: just came across https://youtube.com/watch?v=lfyXPONE7Ws, showing two versions of the same Fred Astaire scene side by side (I can’t find info on how much time there is between the shots, but Wikipedia says ”Long after the photography […] was completed […] the entire sequence was reshot.”, so it likely was days, if not weeks))
I agree with the article that even with Rush Hour and Shanghai Noon, Western audiences really haven't seen the full Jackie Chan palette of tricks and stunts. Some of the stuff he did in movies like Police Story, Armor of God and Drunken Master is amazing. Supercop (Police Story 3, per Wikipedia) has some of the most astonishing stunt work I've ever seen, and Michelle Yeoh matches him stunt for stunt.
I love that in all of his movies Jackie's always getting the crap beat out of him in fights, and there are always extremely clever elements and elements of humor.
The tall guy taking off his tie as he's watching his buddy get beat up with his is just brilliant.
I'm not a fan of martial arts movies in general, but I've lost count of how many Jackie Chan movies I've seen.
That is my favorite fight scene in my limited knowledge of his oeuvre. All the little things make it good (e.g. when Jackie uses the tie against one opponent the other opponent immediately starts untying his own tie).
It also allowed the protagonist to be shown facing off against two very different styles; alternating between kwan's punch-heavy Chinese style, and Smoorenburg's kick-heavy Okinawan style, with the long, drawn out anticipation of him eventually facing both at once.
I've tracked down some behind-the-scenes footage of it, and there's amazing amount of detail put into the timing of each hit; it's much more of a dance using martial-arts moves than it is a fight, and the totality is far more than the sum of its parts.
After writing that comment, I was thinking about how it compares to Martha Graham's school of dance; many things that look very simple and pure on the stage contain a staggering amount of attention to detail that the audience will never notice, except by its absence in a poor performance.
Fun fact, in the 2nd fight here, the guy had to be replaced by Bradley James Allan for almost all the fighting. You can tell because of the significant height difference.
I grew up watching Jackie Chan movies (and other great HK actors that unfortunately can't remember) and I'm amazed of the influence they imprinted in Hollywood. There was a time that influence was more obvious (with Jackie Chan movies in Hollywood) but post Matrix you can just see how that style is sort staple (albeit watered down) in modern movies.
Jackie is Chinese. He ought to be pro-China. In the WaPo article you linked, he says the following:
If our own countrymen don’t support our country,
who will support our country? We know our country
has many problems. We [can] talk about it when the
door is closed. To outsiders, [we should say] “our
country is the best.”
and
Seriously, I am always like, when the door is
closed, “Our country is like this and this. Who
and who is not good.” But outside, “Our country
is the best, like so and so, is the best.” You
cannot say our country has problems [when you are
outside], like “Yes, our country is bad.”
Can you fault him for that? Perhaps it is the American standard that is wrong. Perhaps it is wrong to talk poorly of your own state on the global stage. Just because Americans (who own the fruits of 70-odd years of global dominance) are willing to disparage their country to no end, does not mean that it should be a standard for everyone.
> Just because Americans (who own the fruits of 70-odd years of global dominance) are willing to disparage their country to no end
It's more that Americans do not necessarily consider open criticism of government leaders and policy to be "disparaging our country". Many consider it unpatriotic to not voice such criticism if you honestly believe that something is wrong.
Nothing wrong with being proud of one's nationality or country.
Jackie Chan on the other hand is against free speech, thinks Chinese people can't handle freedom and that they need to be controlled for their own good.
Aren't all those things the particular American idea of what government should be?
Why should the Chinese agree with it?
Because of the white man's burden? Or because some countries think their way (e.g. related to how to govern etc) is the only way? China has millennia old tradition and preference for a confucianism in government, where it's all about cohesion and harmony.
Yes; while the attitude is extremely common, and not just when it comes to nations, it's an attitude that serves as a powerful enabler of evil in every context in which it is found, whether national, family, corporate, partisan, religious, or otherwise, and it should emphatically be condemned every time it rears its ugly head.
> Perhaps it is the American standard that is wrong.
> No, they tend to think that their farts don't smell
Some of them might, plenty of them—like Chan—don't believe anyone should criticize America where outsiders can see (of course, it's hard to tell those attitudes apart in either country, since the outward expression of the latter is also a convenient cover for the former.)
You claim that having solidarity with your nation, family, corporation, etc. is an enabler of evil. But what you see as evil probably looks a lot like dominance, control and strength to the rest of the world.
Ultimately, national power is extremely valuable on the global stage. Every single industrial nation on Earth has tens of thousands of business leaders and decision makers working to usurp that power from other nations as their own; this must be known and acknowledged! Whether it be exploitative trade agreements or owning parts of a neighbouring country's industry, to have control and dominance over other nations and their diverse varieties of resources is what wars are fought over.
Thus, if Americans do not seek to solidify their dominance at every moment, their dominance will be taken from them at some point; of this we can be sure. We _must_ have solidarity. It is not an enabler of evil - rather, it protects us from the evils that others might inflict upon us. Because that's how the world works. We fight over resources.
> You claim that having solidarity with your nation, family, corporation, etc. is an enabler of evil.
No, I claim that refusing to ackniwledge and criticize evil by members of your family, nation, corporation, etc. around outsiders is an enabler of evil. Solidarity doesn't require that.
Yes, very true. I was responding to the idea that a person should be patriotic, though. Although in Mr. Chan's case, surely that would imply he should be pro-Hong Kong, whatever that means...
What's with this idea that the country that nurtured you, and the culture that you were raised in, and where you live, is some "accident of birth"?
You can always immigrate.
But even for immigrants, their native country, if they spend their formative years there, is not some mere "accident of birth", anymore than your family is or your kid is (after all what is a kid? Some accident of birth as well, could have made another kid with another person -- not to mention who your spouse is among 8 billion is an "accident of meeting", etc)
Yes, obviously, if they're right. Patriotism is not a virtue, if you're using the definition "blindly support whatever your country does". Sometimes it means "desire to make your country the best it can be", but I don't think that's what we're talking about here.
I a lot of ignorant "Why shouldn't Jackie be a patriot?!" replies to this. Jackie Chan was not born in China (the country), but in Hong Kong (the then-British colony). Hong Kong and mainland Chinese culture is not the same, and a great many Hong Kong people are not thrilled to be "Chinese" as defined by the CCP. I'm sure plenty of Jackie Chan's fellow Hong Kongers would see his CCP-shilling as selling out his home.
No plan, he admits defeat. "I know I'm not young anymore. I cannot continue to make Rush Hour 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. How can I continue [to] do this kind of funny face".
Later he states that if he stays in the industry he will no longer act. "If I'm [to] continue on in the film industry," Jackie says, "I have to change. Otherwise, you gone. You see—in Japan. Korea. America. China. Hong Kong. How many action star all gone? Only few can stay. Stallone's different. He's a legend. Other action stars already gone.
"So that's why I'm looking for different script, different character, different Jackie Chan. I want the audience look at Jackie Chan as an actor. Not the action star. Actor who can fight. Look at Clint Eastwood. If he continue to 'Make my day'? Gone. So he change to directing. He change some other things. Look at Al Pacino. Robert De Niro. I wanna be an Asian Robert De Niro, Dustin Hoffman, Al Pacino."
To change. To do different roles and things beyond acting looking that careers of Clint Eastwood, Al Pacino etc for inspiration noting that if Clint kept on repeating "Go ahead make my day" in every film his career would have been over pretty fast thereafter.
The plan is constant reinvention. The underlying irony is to western audiences, including those who love his work very dearly, he's type-cast and plays essentially the same character in every film. His new grittier film likened to Liam Neeson in Taken, may change that.
My interpretation is how he will keep kicking forever was from this...
He hasn't been idle this decade. Idle is not one of the speeds in Jackie Chan's gearbox. "Sometimes I look at some other actors, famous actors," he says incredulously. "They're so comfortable! After filming, just holiday! With a girlfriend or the family." After filming, Jackie tends to an ever-expanding portfolio of business interests, and then he makes more films.
He's just going to be doing a lot more things besides acting. I also view him and his school as something that allows him to be 'kicking forever' even if he retires. All the stunt men/women are a product of his handwork.
Jackie Chan is more like Buster Keaton to me, just with some fighting and beating added to slapstick. I wish there were more actors and actresses like them, doing hard work, always rising the bar. After that, the cheap comedies or action films could be better value added productions (they won't be cheap in means of budget, I know). More like interdisciplinary works of art, combining acrobatics, coreography, pyrotechnics etc. with more modern technical aspects of film making. IMHO, without that effort and authenticity, most of those films would be just huge wastes of money and time.
He is also a very good character actor. I realised this after watching New Police Story where he's really showing that he's not just capable of doing great fight scenes.
...without any formal kung-fu training! He's just a gifted physical mimic.
Gordon Liu is another hugely influential actor who more or less is what people think of when they think of shaolin kung fu, and he starred in many of the most iconic films of that genre, like the 36th chamber of shaolin. Then you have the five venoms, etc. If you actually went through a collection of the best films, like the old Dragon Dynasty DVDs, you'd be shocked to see how little Chan is in them.
Thanks for the recommendations, I will definitely check them. I was into kung-fu films back in VHS days but most of the time you couldn't see names on the cover, just one exaggerated film title translation. There were great performances but it is really hard to find them after all these years.
the best about Jackie's movies is: there is no need for excessive violence and blood. Hollywood just becomes more krass every year. But Jackie shows well that Action and Comedy can go together and still be family friendly
Imagine when the inevitable economy kicks in, it would be cheaper to render retired/dead actors and continue their franchises instead of having new actors entering the showbusiness with risky reception. Today's GAN video here hints at that possibility not very far away. So in a way Jackie Chan can indeed keep kicking forever...
I've always loved Jackie Chan's movies for their childlike innocence. The logic in his movies is the logic of kids, which is also why kids absolutely love his movies (as I did).
The villains and heroes in his movies think the way kids do. If you defeat the neighborhood bad guy, of course all crime would stop. If you're a rich guy, of course you'd turn your entire wealth into diamonds. Who wouldn't want diamonds?
The violence in his movies is also never really sinister. Nor are the villains - especially the thugs-for-hire cannon fodder - ever truly evil. In Rumble in the Bronx, the initial bad guy - Tony (iirc) - becomes Jackie's friend once he realizes that Jackie is actually a good guy.
That's child logic, and I absolutely love it.
I know some "serious" movie critics fault his movies for their simplistic plot lines, but to me, this is a feature, not a flaw.
Outside of animation, I don't see any western movie maker doing anything remotely similar.
After failing to confront Keung, the bikers trash Elaine's supermarket, during which two of Angelo's men are captured by White Tiger's men, who turn up at the supermarket in search of Angelo. Angelo's colleagues are unaware of his diamond heist and one is executed in a tree-shredder; his remains given back to the other gangsters as a warning to return the multimillion-dollar goods.
Yeah, puranjay needs to go rewatch some of Jackie's early movies again. A lot of Jackie's later movies -- and maybe the ones puranjay is remembering -- explicitly were kids movies. But many of his earlier ones definitely were not. Jackie's characters often had a certain childlike innocence, but the movies themselves did not.
When you’re more successful you have more control over the direction and type of films you’re in. Since almost all of his later movies are kids movies, I think GP’s comments regarding Chan are valid.
Don't get me wrong, I love Jackie and I think there's something to this. I adored his movies when I was a kid, even his more violent ones, and still do to this day. I just think it's not fair or true to paint all of his movies as being childlike. Including some of the ones the poster directly referenced.
Drunken Master 2 has one of the most depressing endings I've ever seen in a movie. After the final fight (which involves his drinking industrial grade alcohol to power up enough to win) the movie flashes forwards and it turns out that Jackie's character is severely and permanently mentally retarded because of the alcohol he drank.
This was taken out of the American release of the film.
yup, reading this comment I couldn't stop thinking about Rumble in the Bronx. Police Story and a bunch of other more obscure HK movies are pretty dark as well.
I might be mixing up movies, which movie is the one where he's a policeman and it starts by him entering a hangar with all of his mates being hanged from the roof?
you need to watch the film. It's nowhere near as grim as synopsis's sound. The gang parts are so goofy as to be hilarious, with the least realistic gang this side of west Side Story.
Yeah, I watched it with my nine-year old son and even told him to not watch that part. He peeked and was really affected by it. It's not like you see much but you know what just happened and that was enough.
Got an earful from my wife about that choice. Heheh
One of my favorite quotes about Jackie Chan came from Roger Ebert while he was reviewing one of his movies: "You can see how hard he is working at every moment to please the audience. If he could jump out of the screen and buy popcorn for everyone in the theater, he would do it."
Jackie Chan is really idolized in the West, but not much is known here about him as a person. My wife is from Hong Kong and has told me all about his reputation as a womanizer. The typical Hollywood "Want to be the leading woman in my movie? Sleep with me." sort of thing. He even has an estranged daughter as the product of an affair.
It's really not so different from a lot of Western actors, but it seems like Westerners are ignorant of it in Chan's case. As others mentioned, his films have a certain innocent quality. But the real man, not so much.
How does he have so much money if most of his movies are not that good or are unprofitable. I don't get it. A private jet costs $40+ million . Who is giving him all this money....I don't understand the math of how some people in the film industry make so much money yet others make much less. I guess he is paid a huge flat rate per film and if he does dozens of them it adds up.
He has over 100 movies and 5 decades of works. His many movies in 80s, 90s are major blockbusters in Hong Kong, Taiwan, South East Asia, the reason he can have Hollywood movies. His movies in the last 10 years are not major sellers but they're only one or two lemons. He is still pulling in the crowd in China. And his movies are still shown during peak Chinese New Year CNY in China, indicating investors confidence. Most stars in China wants their movies shown during this CNY period. He owns film studio, and you can go watch a movie in "Jackie Chan" branded theatres in China. Most film deals he struck are based on % of movie revenue. He is more business man than an actor. Are you serious in doubting his wealth?
Its great to see that other movie markets can be bigger than America's now with those Jackie Chan movies earning 250 million in China alone.
In another country I remember hearing about the number 1 movies having only 30 million in earnings. I think that was a record for Japan at the time. So it never really mattered what the local population thought, changing it for American audiences was always important because a lackluster performance was still a great deal.
103 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 208 ms ] threadI am eating a banana
btw i'm British, what is Senor Franscisco's reference to "Errrrvine" ? (then he does the thing with his hair?)
soz, off topic
There are a few decent fight scenes that happen from time to time in modern action films. Haywire is really good, for one.
Some of Jet Li's work in the early 2000s is good as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owz45n-QUNQ
> The film's title was supposed to be Meals on Wheels. Superstitious Golden Harvest executives however demanded the title change because their two previous films with titles began with the letter 'M' – Megaforce and Menage A Trois – were both box office flops.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwang_Jang-lee
He is almost always amazing to look at, like in this clip from the Buddha Assasinator, where he plays the main villain in red at the end.
https://youtu.be/ehqAgeewn_o
They are't moving that fast in real life at all. Camera trick.
That’s also what gave us Fawlty Towers (sitcom, 2 series of 6 episodes, each of which took weeks to write) and Fred Astaire looking an even better dancer than he was (edit: just came across https://youtube.com/watch?v=lfyXPONE7Ws, showing two versions of the same Fred Astaire scene side by side (I can’t find info on how much time there is between the shots, but Wikipedia says ”Long after the photography […] was completed […] the entire sequence was reshot.”, so it likely was days, if not weeks))
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61s3nnCn7xU&ab_channel=Marti...
The tall guy taking off his tie as he's watching his buddy get beat up with his is just brilliant.
I'm not a fan of martial arts movies in general, but I've lost count of how many Jackie Chan movies I've seen.
It also allowed the protagonist to be shown facing off against two very different styles; alternating between kwan's punch-heavy Chinese style, and Smoorenburg's kick-heavy Okinawan style, with the long, drawn out anticipation of him eventually facing both at once.
I've tracked down some behind-the-scenes footage of it, and there's amazing amount of detail put into the timing of each hit; it's much more of a dance using martial-arts moves than it is a fight, and the totality is far more than the sum of its parts.
It is excellent. If you are interested in watching more and you haven't seen it, I'd highly recommend the Wheels on Meals fight vs. Benny Urquidez
“I wanted to be like a Chaplin or Buster Keaton, but all the martial arts directors I worked with wanted me to copy Bruce Lee.” -- Jackie Chan, http://www.nytimes.com/1995/01/30/movies/faster-than-a-speed...
https://www.buzzfeed.com/kevintang/jackie-chan-offends-chine...
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/jackie-chan-political-...
https://qz.com/720749/why-some-hong-kongers-think-hometown-a...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/01/10...
t. Canadian
Not so much "the American standard" as it is basic logic.
It's more that Americans do not necessarily consider open criticism of government leaders and policy to be "disparaging our country". Many consider it unpatriotic to not voice such criticism if you honestly believe that something is wrong.
Jackie Chan on the other hand is against free speech, thinks Chinese people can't handle freedom and that they need to be controlled for their own good.
Why should the Chinese agree with it?
Because of the white man's burden? Or because some countries think their way (e.g. related to how to govern etc) is the only way? China has millennia old tradition and preference for a confucianism in government, where it's all about cohesion and harmony.
Yes; while the attitude is extremely common, and not just when it comes to nations, it's an attitude that serves as a powerful enabler of evil in every context in which it is found, whether national, family, corporate, partisan, religious, or otherwise, and it should emphatically be condemned every time it rears its ugly head.
> Perhaps it is the American standard that is wrong.
Americans are no less prone to this than others.
No, they tend to think that their farts don't smell -- and that being pro-China as a Chinese is somehow worse than being pro-US as an American.
Some of them might, plenty of them—like Chan—don't believe anyone should criticize America where outsiders can see (of course, it's hard to tell those attitudes apart in either country, since the outward expression of the latter is also a convenient cover for the former.)
Ultimately, national power is extremely valuable on the global stage. Every single industrial nation on Earth has tens of thousands of business leaders and decision makers working to usurp that power from other nations as their own; this must be known and acknowledged! Whether it be exploitative trade agreements or owning parts of a neighbouring country's industry, to have control and dominance over other nations and their diverse varieties of resources is what wars are fought over.
Thus, if Americans do not seek to solidify their dominance at every moment, their dominance will be taken from them at some point; of this we can be sure. We _must_ have solidarity. It is not an enabler of evil - rather, it protects us from the evils that others might inflict upon us. Because that's how the world works. We fight over resources.
No, I claim that refusing to ackniwledge and criticize evil by members of your family, nation, corporation, etc. around outsiders is an enabler of evil. Solidarity doesn't require that.
You can always immigrate.
But even for immigrants, their native country, if they spend their formative years there, is not some mere "accident of birth", anymore than your family is or your kid is (after all what is a kid? Some accident of birth as well, could have made another kid with another person -- not to mention who your spouse is among 8 billion is an "accident of meeting", etc)
Not easily. Many countries are openly hostile to immigration, and do not even have a path to legal immigration.
Because he should go out of his way to agree with the opinions of foreigners on his own country?
In eastern cultures, you never talk poorly of your own "family" (in this case, the country), no matter how bad it might be.
Later he states that if he stays in the industry he will no longer act. "If I'm [to] continue on in the film industry," Jackie says, "I have to change. Otherwise, you gone. You see—in Japan. Korea. America. China. Hong Kong. How many action star all gone? Only few can stay. Stallone's different. He's a legend. Other action stars already gone.
"So that's why I'm looking for different script, different character, different Jackie Chan. I want the audience look at Jackie Chan as an actor. Not the action star. Actor who can fight. Look at Clint Eastwood. If he continue to 'Make my day'? Gone. So he change to directing. He change some other things. Look at Al Pacino. Robert De Niro. I wanna be an Asian Robert De Niro, Dustin Hoffman, Al Pacino."
The plan is constant reinvention. The underlying irony is to western audiences, including those who love his work very dearly, he's type-cast and plays essentially the same character in every film. His new grittier film likened to Liam Neeson in Taken, may change that.
He hasn't been idle this decade. Idle is not one of the speeds in Jackie Chan's gearbox. "Sometimes I look at some other actors, famous actors," he says incredulously. "They're so comfortable! After filming, just holiday! With a girlfriend or the family." After filming, Jackie tends to an ever-expanding portfolio of business interests, and then he makes more films.
He's just going to be doing a lot more things besides acting. I also view him and his school as something that allows him to be 'kicking forever' even if he retires. All the stunt men/women are a product of his handwork.
For example, Beardy (Leung Kar Yan) oozes charisma just by breathing, and does fights like these:
https://youtu.be/ViowFzbOxfU
...without any formal kung-fu training! He's just a gifted physical mimic.
Gordon Liu is another hugely influential actor who more or less is what people think of when they think of shaolin kung fu, and he starred in many of the most iconic films of that genre, like the 36th chamber of shaolin. Then you have the five venoms, etc. If you actually went through a collection of the best films, like the old Dragon Dynasty DVDs, you'd be shocked to see how little Chan is in them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9m6qAaqRu2M
I also like one of Jackie Chan's quotes:
Cinema reflects culture and there is no harm in adapting technology, but not at the cost of losing your originality.
The villains and heroes in his movies think the way kids do. If you defeat the neighborhood bad guy, of course all crime would stop. If you're a rich guy, of course you'd turn your entire wealth into diamonds. Who wouldn't want diamonds?
The violence in his movies is also never really sinister. Nor are the villains - especially the thugs-for-hire cannon fodder - ever truly evil. In Rumble in the Bronx, the initial bad guy - Tony (iirc) - becomes Jackie's friend once he realizes that Jackie is actually a good guy.
That's child logic, and I absolutely love it.
I know some "serious" movie critics fault his movies for their simplistic plot lines, but to me, this is a feature, not a flaw.
Outside of animation, I don't see any western movie maker doing anything remotely similar.
After failing to confront Keung, the bikers trash Elaine's supermarket, during which two of Angelo's men are captured by White Tiger's men, who turn up at the supermarket in search of Angelo. Angelo's colleagues are unaware of his diamond heist and one is executed in a tree-shredder; his remains given back to the other gangsters as a warning to return the multimillion-dollar goods.
This was taken out of the American release of the film.
Police Story 1-4 were all good fun. Not really for kids though. Plenty of bawdy jokes and innuendo.
edit: found it, new police story https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdEvxSxZAdE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuQpO9UJhck
It's goofy rather than grim, but it is still pretty damn sinister.
Got an earful from my wife about that choice. Heheh
Remember those old Tom and Jerry cartoons where Tom was once sawed in half, or blown to smithereens?
(And still does, eh)
He's tried to do some more dark and serious movies (like Crime Story and Shinjuku Incident) but frankly he always seems kind of odd in them.
It's really not so different from a lot of Western actors, but it seems like Westerners are ignorant of it in Chan's case. As others mentioned, his films have a certain innocent quality. But the real man, not so much.
Secondly, he can invest just like everybody else but starts off with more.
Being in a high place in society amplifies investment opportunities too.
Heck rush hour 1-3 probably paid off that jet easily
In another country I remember hearing about the number 1 movies having only 30 million in earnings. I think that was a record for Japan at the time. So it never really mattered what the local population thought, changing it for American audiences was always important because a lackluster performance was still a great deal.