"Jump London", pah! Did you see "Rumble in the Bronx"?

[Tripitaka of AA]

Those French blokes who like to re-interpret the enclosed suppressive qualities of modern architecture by redefining the boundaries according to a new synthesis of athleticism and adventure (translation: they like to run around climbing lamp-posts and jumping over walls). They had their TV documentary called "Jump London" and cited martial arts movies as some of their inspiration. They showed a clip of Bruce Lee stretching before the showdown with Chuck Norris in "Way of the Dragon". Well they should have shown Jackie Chan from any number of movies, but then, it would have taken away some of the shine from the Le Parkour troupe. He's had that kind of action in his movies for years, just without the pretension at "Conceptual Art".

"Rumble in the Bronx", although far from a perfect movie, has better and more imaginitive jumps and wall climbs than the whole Jump London special, although it was from just one man. I guess you could have lost it amongst all the kicking, punching, falling, chaos of the rest of the movie. But any of you PK fans out there who are still trying to climb that lamp-post in one move, check out this movie and watch it in slow motion.

[Tripitaka of AA]

I should explain; "Jump London" was shown on British TV last summer, then repeated over the Christmas holiday. "Rumble in the Bronx" was shown, widescreen, on British TV (CH4) this weekend.

Incidentally, all Jackie Chan's movies should be seen Widescreen, or the timing of the fight action is messed up. This should be true of all MA films, but in reality, no-one else has such complicated scenes in-one-shot, so it doesn't really matter so much. Feel free to disagree.

[kage110]

I didn't watch that particular Jackie Chan movie but I have to agree that the stunts performed in JC movies are out of this world. However, it is little unfair to knock what the PK (Jump London) guys are doing on the basis that they don't measure up to JC. JC has been doing stunts for decades - he has spent his whole professional life preparing for stunts/performing stunts/recovering from stunts - the PK guys have been doing much the same but for a much shorter period. And even though JC does a whole lot of his stunts from a 'no safety wire' perspective he still uses a whole range of safety equipment, practice sessions and meticulous planning before performing the final stunt. While the Jump London tape was edited the three guys performing the jumps were doing them without any safety equipment (with the exception of the big jump on HMS Belfast where a landing mat - all 6 inches thick - was used to absorb the landing of a two-story jump) or padding to their bodies.

On the subject of technical ability we shouldn't be too critical, after all how many of the martial artists on this board would last five minutes with the likes of Jackie Chan? Should we all stop trying to get better at our art(s) just because there is someone out there doing it better? Should all the budding martial artists be prevented from making videos of their arts on the basis that someone else could do a better job? The Jump London documentary was essentially a promotional tool to popularise a minor sport and by all accounts it has worked. PK requires no specialist equipment other than a good pair of running shoes, you can't say the same for a JC movie.

It seems to be that you are objecting tot he philosophy behind the 'art' of PK? Why is this? Why can't someone who goes out and has fun do it while trying to think grander thoughts? Your art of Shorinji Kempo certainly has a philosophical and intellectual side to it. The PK people (from what I have read) approach what they do from the same perspective.

As to why Bruce Lee was shown instead of Jackie Chan; well, that might have something to do with copy write but Bruce Lee is seen as an inspiration to 'inventors' of PK for his concepts and philosophy that make up the art of Jeet Kune Do. It is the philosophy rather than the physical actions that link JKD to PK. I am sure if you asked them they would be fans of JC too.

Personally I look at JC movies for entertainment and marvel at his skill. I looked at PK videos and marvel at their skill too but I am closer to those guys ability level than I am to JC's so that inspires me to greater things.

[Tripitaka of AA]

Hugh, I am humbled. I respect your criticism and have to agree with almost everything that you wrote. You caught me out, criticising someone for doing something well, just because someone else has already done similar things.

I think that the program-makers were ready to make a "promotional" film and did not find it within their remit to include much in the way of criticism of PK. The "philosophy" behind PK was given some prominence, and seemed quite an attractive attitude, paticularly when endorsed by the eloquent spokespeople from the management of the London Landmark buildings used in the program. The positive side of this activity was being highlighted while the darker side was left very much unexplored. I do not recall any mention of responsibility for damage to property or trespass that might befall any less-experienced PKers who decide that it is fine to shin up a drainpipe that tuens out to be loose, or do a handstand on a Bus-shelter that promptly collapses.

Choosing to show footage of Bruce Lee could well have been influenced by permission, or lack of, from the Film's producers. I would imagine that being linked to PK might be something that Movie Producers would view with caution. Although it would probably result in an increase in a Movie's sales, it might not benefit the star to be seen as inciting or condoning law-breaking activity. Who knows how big PK could get, over the next few years.

I was amazed and excited by "Jump London". I love that sort of agility (Chinese circus acrobats are an abiding source of fascination to me), and the contrast to the environment is an inspirational thrill. Imagination played out in reality. I love Jackie Chan's version of "real" stunts too, for the same reasons. I am in awe, at the level of skill that is shown, the audacity and courage, the madness. Most of all, I like it because it falls within the range of "possible", even though it quite obviously isn't possible for most of us. That's what I detest about wire-work and cheat movies that extend the stunt beyond what is really achievable (usually badly), yet still pretend to conform to rules of reality - do it as madly as "The Matrix" and I might forgive you.

But, fair play Hugh. You shall have my sword as your own... {bows deeply}

[monkeyboy_ssj]

I thought the reason they showed Bruce Lee was because they said he was their hero in terms of philosophy and inovation?

hmmm...I agree with both of you though...

[kage110]

Originally posted by Tripitaka of AA
Hugh, I am humbled. I respect your criticism and have to agree with almost everything that you wrote. You caught me out, criticising someone for doing something well, just because someone else has already done similar things.

I think that the program-makers were ready to make a "promotional" film and did not find it within their remit to include much in the way of criticism of PK. The "philosophy" behind PK was given some prominence, and seemed quite an attractive attitude, paticularly when endorsed by the eloquent spokespeople from the management of the London Landmark buildings used in the program. The positive side of this activity was being highlighted while the darker side was left very much unexplored. I do not recall any mention of responsibility for damage to property or trespass that might befall any less-experienced PKers who decide that it is fine to shin up a drainpipe that tuens out to be loose, or do a handstand on a Bus-shelter that promptly collapses.

Choosing to show footage of Bruce Lee could well have been influenced by permission, or lack of, from the Film's producers. I would imagine that being linked to PK might be something that Movie Producers would view with caution. Although it would probably result in an increase in a Movie's sales, it might not benefit the star to be seen as inciting or condoning law-breaking activity. Who knows how big PK could get, over the next few years.

I was amazed and excited by "Jump London". I love that sort of agility (Chinese circus acrobats are an abiding source of fascination to me), and the contrast to the environment is an inspirational thrill. Imagination played out in reality. I love Jackie Chan's version of "real" stunts too, for the same reasons. I am in awe, at the level of skill that is shown, the audacity and courage, the madness. Most of all, I like it because it falls within the range of "possible", even though it quite obviously isn't possible for most of us. That's what I detest about wire-work and cheat movies that extend the stunt beyond what is really achievable (usually badly), yet still pretend to conform to rules of reality - do it as madly as "The Matrix" and I might forgive you.

But, fair play Hugh. You shall have my sword as your own... {bows deeply}

I like swords! Mmmmmmm....swords.....(is there anyone else out there who thinks that I should be kept away from sharp, pointy things?)

The dangers and legality of PK is a concern to some but there are times when I think we worry too much about safety and minor illegality in the country. In the UK we just love to legislate against people having fun if there is the slightest risk involved (or if some granny of any age gets his/her knickers in a twist). However it is not fair on other people to get scared by some young hoon jumping off a building in front of them or getting woken up by people running across you roof/climbing your drain pipe so the PKers need to exercise caution.

The dangers are there but probably less so than riding a push bike in London, and nobody suggests that should be outlawed (not that I have heard you or anyone advocate that PK should be). Most people to have a certain sense of self preservation so will probably not try the extreme stuff until they are more able. Sure, there are going to be injuries and possibly a few deaths but almost every human activity shows the same. On the other hand you have a group of young people growing up who are ultra fit and unlikely to suffer from obescity related health problems. Pros and cons. Darwinism at work?

Back to 'Jump London' though, when did you ever see a promotional documentary/expose (NB. the last 'e' is supposed to have one of those marks over it to indicate it is a French word) that talked about the negative side of any activity? And seeing as nobody in the UK would have known anything about it who would have been able to offer genuine, constructive criticism and not just the typical knee-jerk NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) reaction that I, for one, have learned to expect.

After that show came out, a whole lot of people got very interested in PK (myself included) and started to investigate the sport via the internet. The PK community in the UK is organised, skilled and dedicated to making their sport a success. Sure, they are not necessarily strict conformers to the conventions of the general public (but many MAists are not either) but they do not advocate illegal activity or encourage causing trouble. Quite to the contrary actually as they are keen for the sport to be accepted and not banned like so many other things have been (like kicking a ball near houses for instance).

[Tripitaka of AA]

Originally posted by kage110
After that show came out, a whole lot of people got very interested in PK (myself included) and started to investigate the sport via the internet. The PK community in the UK is organised, skilled and dedicated to making their sport a success. Sure, they are not necessarily strict conformers to the conventions of the general public (but many MAists are not either) but they do not advocate illegal activity or encourage causing trouble. Quite to the contrary actually as they are keen for the sport to be accepted and not banned like so many other things have been (like kicking a ball near houses for instance).

You make a damn fine spokesman for the community Hugh.

I'm not sure why my comments are coming out so laden with negativity, I must be in need of some more dietary roughage . I watched the program with much pleasure. It was one of the few programs last year that I actually made a point of recording. I guess I just wanted to hear someone name my favourite cinematic Martial Artist (who seems to be on the same wavelength), rather than going for the easy option of "legendary icon" Bruce. It came across like a lack of research, rather than a contractual issue. Oops, there I go again.


Anyhow, Hugh, if you like PK, then "Rumble in the Bronx" is a must. Ignore the dumb schmaltzy storyline. Bypass the drug-dealing, diamond-stealing, gang-war/mob-crime nonsense that poses as a plot. Laugh at the silly JC comedy that aims to get the laughs that circus clowns go for with buckets of water that turn out to be confetti.... focus on JC hop-skip-jumping over gates, climbing/leaping/jumping over all sorts of obstacles (he is being chased by various gang members), then sit back and relish the outstanding PK-style leap that comes halfway through.

JC is damaged, outnumbered and threatened with near-extinction (they just pushed a truck off the top of a multi-storey while he was still in it - he jumped off at the last second, not brilliantly filmed, but "real"). He is cornered, without any option and must jump from the building. He makes a run, does the jump and makes it to safety. The jump alone earns him the respect of his adversaries... -ish.

Details:
The Take-Off point is higher than the landing, and although it isn't so clear in the uncut take, I'd assume that there is some lengthy run-up (the edit makes it look like he has to run up a car, or jump over a handrail, but lets get real, he needs an unobstructed take-off point and run-up).

The drop is about one floor.

The gap between the buildings is (now this is difficult to estimate), 20-30 feet. Does that sound about right?

The landing is a balcony. It is the landing of an exterior fire escape with an open doorway. If he jumps too high or too far, he'll hit his head on the top of the doorway. If he jumps short or drops too much he'll hit the metal handrail with his shins. If he veers to either side then he will be splat against a wall. THe Landing site is the maddest/dumbest/most-impossible aspect of the stunt. I've never seen anything like it. Everyone knows that a filmed jump NEVER shows the landing. Hong Kong stuntmen are the only ones who don't seem to know this. At one time I was so convinced that the landing was too impossible, that I believed that it was a faked jump, or wire-assisted, or papier-mache (NB. the last 'e' is supposed to have one of those marks over it to indicate it is a French word) doorframe or something! I've come back to the belief that it is true.

[kage110]

Originally posted by Tripitaka of AA
[B]You make a damn fine spokesman for the community Hugh.

<snip>

Anyhow, Hugh, if you like PK, then "Rumble in the Bronx" is a must.

B]

Don't know about being a spokesman, but thanks anyway. Check out Urban Free Flow if you want to know what the PK community in the UK (and around the world) is up to.

I will try and see the film. At one time I was a totally avid JC fan and watched any movie that he was in but I have gone off them in recent years as the story lines are getting worse and I can do without the attempts at comedy. Jet Li on the other hand makes brilliant films!

Let the MA movie war begin...!