Imagethief sends his deepest sympathies to the organizers of the Bo'ao Forum for Asia, who's main contribution to the public discourse this year is a fierce debate on the meaning of what Jackie Chan said during a panel discussion he participated in. Personally, Imagethief feels that nothing that pop-culture celebrities say should be taken particularly seriously. Yes, that's true for Bono, it's true for Sharon Stone, and it's damn sure true for Jackie Chan. I mean, how much can we really trust this guy's judgment after The Tuxedo?

My Chinese isn't good enough to get into a semantic analysis of what Jackie actually said and how faithfully it was translated or how well the cultural nuance was captured. And frankly, if you follow the guidance above, none of that should matter because you'll just be thinking to yourself, well, that Jackie was a first-rate acrobat and at least a marginal singer, but he's no Nelson Mandela.

On the other hand, perhaps that's too harsh. After all, what Jackie said was arguably milder than the sentiments previously voiced by Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew and Malaysia's Mahathir Mohammed, and they're both considered important Asian statesmen. And whatever else you may think, Jackie knew how to work the local crowd. The boss of Imagethief's own firm was appearing on a panel in the next room when Jackie let fly with his political insights, and they heard the cheering.

Fortunately for all of us, people better equipped than I to analyze the Master's statements have jumped into the fray. High marks for CNReview's analysis of the Western media's translation of Chan's remarks, and the passionate discussion that they have kindled in their comments section:

Context is important, and with the context we have available, the current popular spin of Chan’s comments throughout the Western media suggesting him as supporting the control, repression, or oppression of the Chinese people is questionable at best and shamelessly distorted at worst. The subsequent outrage is understandable, but also silly. You can liken Chan’s comments to the same ignorant comments made by many other audacious celebrities and thus dismiss them, or you can do a better job of not translating his Chinese comments in the most politically inflammatory way possible.

Well, I'll go with the former, as you'll have noted from my intro. Interestingly enough, the BBC reports that Chan's spokesman says that the remarks were taken "out of context", that Chan was referring to freedom in the entertainment industry, and that the remarks were being distorted by people with "ulterior motives". Imagethief is a Jackie Chan fan of old, but I'm sure I don't buy that one. And as a good media trainer once told me, and with all due respect to CNReviews, all quotes are out of context unless they're in a full transcript. Something to plan on.

You should also check out the always-thoughtful Sam Crane's analysis at the Useless Tree. Sam suggests that Jackie Chan is unknowingly channeling legendary Orientalist Arthur Smith:

I am hesitant to give too much credence to what celebrities have to say about politics.  In most cases, these are people who have not thought a great deal about history and politics and philosophy.  Is he even aware that he is making an argument very much like that used by imperialists against China in the nineteenth and early twentieth century; that he is repeating something rather like the "Chinese characteristics" analysis?  Has he heard of Arthur Smith?  Probably not.  So, perhaps he is not aware of how Orientalism can turn back upon its targets and become part of a discourse that reproduces certain stereotypes and all of the social and political practices that are associated with them.

Because that is what he is doing here.  He is taking an image - China is so "chaotic" that individual Chinese persons cannot be trusted with meaningful political participation - that, ironically, the founders of the Chinese Communist Party rejected in their early days of revolutionary struggle, and he is investing it with a certain celebrity legitimacy.

Finally, John Pomfret, the former Washington Post bureau chief in Beijing, thinks the whole thing is a symptom of the renewed class divide in China:

Chan is just saying what a lot of other rich Chinese feel. In the 20 years since Tiananmen, Chinese society has changed enormously. One of the most astounding ways has been in the return of a class society and in the disdain with which China's rich view China's poor. When Chan was saying Chinese need to be "controlled," to be sure, he was speaking about the poor. He didn't have to say it, But that's what the audience at Boao heard and that's why they cheered him on. Anyone who has conversations of depth with members of China's elite has heard this argument before. "The quality of the average Chinese is too low," the line goes. (Zhongguoren de suzhi tai di le.) "So of course we can't have full freedom."

All interesting perspectives from people far more learned on the topic than me. As for me, my feelings on Jackie Chan are that you can pretty much watch anything he made between 1983's Project A and 1994's Drunken Master II, except for Cannonball Run II and that ridiculous James Glickenhaus thing he did with Danny Aiello back in '85. Skip everything else.

Oh, and that he should consider a change of publicist.

Previously on Imagethief:

Pardon me, but who gives a damn about Gong Li anyway? (November, 2008)

The celebrity that ate my brand (February, 2009)

Jackie Chan

But that's not what I meant!