- Term Papers and Free Essays

Language Vs. Film

Essay by 24  •  November 4, 2010  •  907 Words (4 Pages)  •  685 Views

Essay Preview: Language Vs. Film

Report this essay
Page 1 of 4

Language vs. Film

The movie industry accepted Jackie Chan as a figure of martial arts, a means of creativity rarely found in other races. In Tattle's article "Jackie Chan is clueless over English grammar nuances", Chan was exposed as a productive actor whose English was not proficient. How does Tattle slant Jackie Chan's words and works into an opinion piece? By striping down Jackie Chan's experience with English, and neglecting to add in the overall experience of Asian actors in America, Tattle insulted the Asian community.

At first glance, Tattle's particularly short article on Jackie Chan seemed of the most amiable nature; but in a more focused view, Tattle offended Chan and his race. Jackie Chan, an actor who dealt mainly with physical acting, was represented as an uneducated man with a very strong Chinese accent. The article itself had very vague details about Chinese actors, and had the sense that the writer wanted Asians to star in only Asian movies. However, the article didn't state this; it merely exposed Jackie Chan's strong accent. "He's often frustrated by his inability to deliver his English lines smoothly during the shooting of "Rush Hour 3" according to his website entry Saturday...To me, action scenes are so easy. But dialogue scenes drive me crazy." Chan is a prolific actor, but he has said his roles in American films are limited because of his grasp of English. Throughout the entire article Jackie Chan was misrepresented as the Chinese man with a harsh accent. In a sense, the journalist seemed to explain that Asians can only succeeded in an action sequence. This stereotype has long been the view to which the world sees Asians, but more heartbreakingly the article focus on one Asians man and his language skills.

In this article Chan was the handicap who needed help to deliver his English lines; in this article he was less then human. "Chan dedicated one diary entry to co-star Chris Tucker, thanking him for helping with the dialogue. Chan also said he was grateful to director Brett Ratner who tried to simplify the lines." This passage undermined Jackie Chan by saying that he was not intelligent enough to speak English. The passage states that Chan needed the director Brett Batner to simplify the lines. Tattle used the word simplify in the context in which caused the reader not to view Jackie Chan as an actor, but a child or underdeveloped animal. Tattle proceeded to provide quotes from Jackie Chan but not without leaving the reader in a little doubt.

The evidence that Tattle used was insufficient as it was not a direct quote from the actor to the writer, but secondary source found online. What was more disturbing was the fact that the article posted online that Tattle quoted from was not posted along with the article. Tattle simply explained that Jackie Chan himself wrote an online thank you to his co-star, and wrote a diary entry explaining his frustration with English. There was no real indication that there was ever a face-to-face interview with Jackie. Since there wasn't a resource that was written down with this statement the read cannot identify if the resource was dependable or not. This presentation of evidence was unacceptable, allowing room for much misinterpretation. The universal picture



Download as:   txt (5.4 Kb)   pdf (78 Kb)   docx (10.3 Kb)  
Continue for 3 more pages »
Only available on
Citation Generator

(2010, 11). Language Vs. Film. Retrieved 11, 2010, from

"Language Vs. Film" 11 2010. 2010. 11 2010 <>.

"Language Vs. Film.", 11 2010. Web. 11 2010. <>.

"Language Vs. Film." 11, 2010. Accessed 11, 2010.