This week, I found Gunning’s article, “Crazy Machines in the Garden of Forking Paths”, to be particularly inciteful over the initial formations of film comedy – and therefore also the cemented dynamics which had been forever set by these initial, ‘unique’ mischief films, like the Lumiere Brothers’ L’Arroseur arrose (1895). Gunning makes clear arguments that whilst these films of attraction are distinct from later early comedies in film, and certainly hold their respective influences over the tradition of film comedy, they remain ultimately distinct from their eventual successors. (1) Gunning also highlighted the early schema of film comedy, in examining the dynamic between the ‘rascal’ and the ‘victim’ – but especially of the ‘device’ that links them and overall acts as a catalyst for the ‘gag’ to occur.(2) These ‘gags’ and ‘devices’ would ultimately survive the transformative period in the early 20th century as films of attraction made way to later early comedies – we can perhaps see evidence of this in Buster Keaton’s particular reliance on ‘mischief devices’, as is exemplified by Gunning (3), but I would argue that even beyond Keaton, later comedies in the latter end of the century consistently rely on similar fundamentals established by mischief films. Whilst many of the generic aspects of film comedy have changed, in respect to length and narrative form, the core dynamics of ‘gags’ in the respect of film comedy remain, under subtext, all the same.
Jackie Chan films often tend to borrow key aspects from films of attraction and early comedies and supplies them with a cultural heritage that overall introduces the ‘device’ which subverts typical film comedy conventions. Chan often based some of his stunts to resemble Keaton’s own film stunts – but the ‘device’ which comedic torpor depended upon this time lies with Chan himself. For example, in ‘First Strike’ (Tong, 1997), Chan’s character must attempt to save the damsel in distress using his martial arts prowess – a typical convention of most kung-fu flicks. The subversion, however, comes from Jackie having to fend himself off from a gang of numerous men, using only objects which one would find on the set of a construction site – and although the apparatus themselves are the cause of comedy in the scene, I would argue that it is ultimately Chan’s perceived adaptability in action which makes his gags work. When watching this scene, audiences would follow the familiar schema initially set by mischief films of the preparatory phase and result phase, but in this case the role of the ‘victim’ is taken as more of a collective role as ‘bad guys’, and Chan, ‘the rascal’, needs to make use of everyday appliances around him in order to keep his life. And furthermore, whilst being an example of innovative physical comedy, Chan presents an opportunity to subvert typical kung fu genre conventions and let comic interpretations of the genre be considered. In other areas, Chan’s films generally tend to otherwise invoke similarities with films of attraction, as it has been made common knowledge that the stunts performed in Chan’s films are of his own work and as real as depicted on frame – somewhat a continuation of Keaton’s work on gags, and the mischief film, except with an additional implication of realism in their execution.
(1) Tom Gunning, ‘Crazy Machines in the Garden of Forking Paths: Mischief Gags and the Origins of American Film Comedy’ in Classical Hollywood Comedy, eds. Kristine Brunovska Karnick and Henry Jenkins (New York: Routledge, 2013), 88.
(2) – ibid, p.90
(3) – ibid, 99.
I find the parallels you draw between Jackie Chan and early film comedy very intriguing! The subversion of the harmless gags into life-and-death fighting is particularly fascinating.
However, you only seem to mention Buster Keaton’s gags and stunt work, when the image you use as an example is of course Harold Lloyd’s Safety Last! I wonder if you could elaborate on specific Keaton gags that Chan is influenced by; or, indeed, Keaton’s contemporaries. One example from off the top of my head would be the use of a ladder as a weapon. As you mention in First Strike, Chan adapts to the environment to fend off his enemies, just like how the silent comic greats would. But I think more specifically, his use of a ladder as a weapon directly evokes Keaton’s use of it in Cops, and Chaplin’s in The Pawnshop, where their respective ‘enemies’ are defeated with a mix of clever and clueless wielding of the ladder. Thus, not only does Chan’s comedic action simulate early comedic gags in its structure, it also homages them in the very image itself.
I find your link between Jackie Chan films and Gunnings’ reading very interesting! I personally would have never made that connection!
The point you make about Chan using one object to fend off a large group of men reminded me, particularly, of Charlie Chaplin’s use of the sight gag. While Chan uses a random object as a weapon to fight, Chaplin uses them for other random purposes. For example, in the Pawn Shop, when he is dissecting the alarm clock and uses the telephone receiver as a monocle to look a the alarm clock more closely. Although you mention that you don’t believe that the use of objects are the source of comedy in those scenes, I find the parallels here very interesting!
I really liked your comparison between early comedies and Jackie Chan’s action comedy films. It made me think about how action movies transform some of the old gags and use them in the situations with usually much higher stakes. Explosions and fight scenes in action comedies are often structured in a similar way to silent films’ pranks, only in a greater scale.
Really interesting! I think that Jackie Chan’s chase scenes and gang fights in ‘Around the World in 80 Days’ (Frank Coraci, 2004) are another great example of how, in the post-silent comedy era, the contained and disruptive form of mischief gags can be woven into a more conventional linear narrative that also employs verbal joking.