Language Vs. FilmEssay Preview: Language Vs. FilmReport this essayLanguage vs. FilmThe movie industry accepted Jackie Chan as a figure of martial arts, a means of creativity rarely found in other races. In Tattles 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 Chans words and works into an opinion piece? By striping down Jackie Chans experience with English, and neglecting to add in the overall experience of Asian actors in America, Tattle insulted the Asian community.
At first glance, Tattles 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 didnt state this; it merely exposed Jackie Chans strong accent. “Hes often frustrated by his inability to deliver his English lines smoothly during the shooting of “Rush Hour 3″ according to his website entry SaturdayTo 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 wasnt 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
Suspended in 2006
The original press release of the report was changed. The first press release of the report was retracted in April 2006. The original report contained a “full report, with transcripts and an outline of the relevant chapters of the report and its parts” but the final report was changed as a rule to remove information that could be useful to the original press release. The revised report included references to Jackie Chan, a film director who went to work for Tattle, and the fact that Jackie Chan, the actor who co-starred in the film, had worked with Tattle in his spare time, as well as his personal life. The two women in the original report were never mentioned, but their presence, along with Tattle’s actions and actions in relation to The Times, made it more difficult for the author to establish that anything she said or did was true. The original report in fact contained an extensive report including a written statement by the two women in the story.
Although this report was not retracted, it was a difficult decision. It was clear that the writers themselves, who were responsible for the original statement and report, had a serious problem with credibility. If Tattle and his crew were responsible for what the original report made clear Jackie and the other women used as props to write her statement. It was clear that their decision was not influenced by the nature of its content or the nature of these people. However Tattle was accused of plagiarism and had his work withdrawn. The authors, who also did not receive royalties for their work, could not explain why they considered plagiarism to be unethical. However, the authors could not reveal how their work was used in a way that could be considered harmful to the audience of their work. The authors are aware of this and are working on an apology. The author is very disappointed by the decision, but would not release further information about the story.
The publication of the full report was not as positive as it seemed, especially when I read that Tattle had not taken on responsibility for being plagiarists. This was clearly a decision made by the writers. As with any work by an independent person, they found a way to blame others. The only way the authors managed to get this negative press is to make the narrative about them even worse than it would have been otherwise. This is also the way in which writers make their work work. When people become aware of new ideas that are not fully understood, it is easy for people to feel intimidated or even ashamed to make changes unless they know all their source materials are being copied.
The final issue of the report was a failure to take into account the following issues mentioned by its author:
• Tattle had a “no-contact” policy regarding his interviews with the three women in the story.
• Tattle himself did not make such an official comment.
• The authors had to wait months to find out just how many of the women in the story had never heard of Tattle or had