Kung Fu Hustle

While doing historical research for a novel-length mystery I am working on I came across a fairly recent opinion piece that unapologetically decried the advent of the Internet, specifically web logs or blogs that focus on entertainment because not only are they undeniably subjective but they also inherently tend toward what many consider to be less than civilized writing practices and tactics; characteristics, it is argued by the author of this opinion piece, that accelerate the demise of civilization as we know it.

Simply, those who maintain entertainment blogs, and find success in doing so, do so more often than not by way of what traditional media would call 'spoilers': Revelation of important events or facts that would otherwise be certain means of getting fickle audiences to consider the fare at hand by way of curiousity, and a subsequent williness to pay the price of admission for same.

And this, it is argued, is wrong because it goes to demonstrate a certain contempt and disdain, disrespect and disregard, for the creator of the work at hand.

Maybe.

As one who has spent three years, on and off, thousands of hours, and seemingly endless amounts of energy taking photographs, making notes, digging through dusty stacks comprised of all but forgotten tomes and titles in collegiate libraries, and working it to make a cohesive narrative, I will be the first to admit I would be the last person who would want my otherwise secret so hastily and roughly revealed by a blogger who thinks himself clever doing so. But at the same time I know the revelation of the identity of the murderer in this particular mystery is, at best, minimal, because it is the story that matters most of all.

And it is a story, I believe, that cannot be readily revealed in something so relatively simple and crude as a blog.

Why? Because the foundation of this particular story is based in violence.

Of a potentially spiritual and theological nature, incidentially.

Now comes certain criticism: There is a school of thought that suggests violence, all violence, is wrong. Following this prejudicial assertion a conclusion is readily reached: Martial arts are violent, and that is wrong. Therefore, any work that justifies violence should be discarded out of hand.

It is a notion, I hold, that is at best foolish: Discard a work just because it contains violence?

No.

Consider the violence accordingly, contextually, and then make your decision.

It will be worth your time, I assure. Especially if the work in question is "Kung Fu Hustle", a martial arts effort superficially bloated with violence of varying form and manner, that is actually a clever melding of the Busby Berkeley musical with the physical choreographic romantic art of Astaire and Rogers, framed with the visual skill and merit of "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon".

Go To Page: 1 2 3