Big Problems with “Little China”
Ridiculous, one could say Big Trouble in Little China is ridiculous. The 1986 film is littered with problems that threaten to take away from it’s message. The biggest problem is not the editing, writing, directing, or acting. These things all seem sub-par, or maybe they are best parts from every genre. However, in this particular film, the mixture of all these elements creates confusion.
The scenes are too long for the dialogue within them. It is almost as if the production team tried too desperately to keep the film under 100 minutes. In fact, coming in at 99 minutes, the film seems to go too fast. The dialogue is delivered well by the actors; however, the speed seems as if each line is delivered on top of the next. It’s as if every intimate scene is delivered with the speed of an adrenaline filled fight.
Moreover, the editing feels like a dream. The most notable way to know that one is in a dream is the realization that you have no idea how you got from one point to another. Establishing shots are the benchmark of film. They establish the scene and what is to precede the action that follows. There are none of these in Big Trouble in Little China. The lack of these shots can create a speed that is confusing for the audience. By the time anyone realizes what exactly is happening, or the point of the scene itself, it is nearly over.
Beginning with an investigation into previous events, the opening scene sets up the situation for the action that follows. Back tracking to an earlier day, Jack Burton, played by Kurt Russell, is a truck driver: successful or not, drunk or not, general slacker or not. None of this is explored. The film cuts to Burton in a card game against an old friend, Wang Chi, played by Dennis Dun. Burton wins’ thousands of dollars from Dun, but is untrusting of his old friend’s intentions. He begrudgingly accompanies Wang to the airport, where the latter is to meet with the girl of his dreams. There the duo encounters a fast talking lawyer, Gracie Law, played by Kim Catrall, who is at times too fast-talking and too naïve for the character she portrays. As Wang’s dream girl is kidnapped by a Chinese gang, the two heroes follow the violent criminals into the center of Little China, San Francisco. It is here that Burton encounters rival gang members, and an evil Sorcerer, who is such because we are told so. The story soon progresses to Burton finding out that his friends know more than they let on, and he may be in way over his head.
While none of the secondary characters are explored, the audience must come to the realization that Russell’s Jack Burton is one of them. He is the comedy delivering straight man, who is unwilling to believe the ridiculousness he has been thrust in to. Russell knows, as the audience does, that the film, and its plot, is over the top, yet he buys into it, and plays the role perfectly.
Loosely, held together by the antagonist’s affinity for green eyed girls, the purpose for the film itself is not revealed until the seconds following the climatic fight. Although satisfying for the audience, one must question why the film’s director, John Carpenter, would wait so long to reveal crucial reasons as to why the audience must hate the main villain.
The film campy. It is ridiculous, and it knows exactly what it is. It intends to break all the normal tropes and characteristics of action and comedies films. The combination of them both is like Indiana Jones on steroids. At times, the film portrays the fight of Rambowith the slapstick ridiculousness of Airplane.
At all times, fantasy, action, adventure, and comedy, the central message, to challenge conventional tropes, is nearly lost. The loosely held together plot could be well extended to include deeper exposition, more elaborate fight sequences, and a variety of humor. And for God’s sake, establish what is happening or where we are in Little China! Although, to be different was the goal, Carpenter would have been well advised to keep the well beaten path in sight, even if he refused to walk along it.
If you wish to find this film, you may have to look hard. You’ll rarely find it on cable or network television, and the film is also a no show on Netflix. The best place to find a quick viewing is on Amazon, which is very fitting. The online marketplace is filled with everything, as is this movie, jammed packed with a little bit of everything.
Despite flawed production elements, this is a film worth exploring. In fact, after a close initial viewing, it may fit well as background noise during the average rainy day. It is a film worth viewing more than once, however, one must actually watch the events depicted to actually get what the artists are intending; a campy action film, with one of the best “one-liner” delivering actors of the time.
Cool headline, though you’re gonna get some push back from hardcore fans.
Early on, probably the second graf, you have to provide at least some of the fatual stuff. Name of the movie. The actors. The plot. THEN you can go into the writing, dialogue, acting, etc.
I like your discussion of establishing shots. I don’t know if it’s accurate; I’ll have to watch again. But if it is true, that is a problem. The speed of the dialogue may have been an attempt to recreate the screwball comedies of the 30s and 40s. That’s where you could maybe put this in an historical context.
The second-to-last graf would have been a fitting final graf. It sums up your review really well.