From: osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X)
Newsgroups: rec.martial-arts
Subject: Speaking of Carradine and "Kung Fu"...
Date: 23 Jan 93 04:06:34 GMT
Organization: Twilight Zone

How do folks!

I was basically ignoring all this talk about the old/new Kung Fu series and
David Carradine, but I hav=ppened to see three back to back episodes last
Sunday (local station was having a KF marathon) and I'm gonna toss in my
two plugged nickels worth (big surprise, eh??).

I'll start by saying that I have not seen an episode of this show since
1973, so my memories were... oh, how shall I say... COLORED.  Anyhow, I
know that many of you folks have voiced some rahter jaded opinions on the
show and on Carradine's MA schtick that he does therein, but I have to say
that all in all, the show was actually rather good in several ways which I
will quickly delineate before I get laughed off the net.

First, the tactics, while perhaps not so well executed as they might have been,
were pretty good in their essence.  Movement (Carradines) was choreographed
to be minimal.  Technique was simple and direct, using much of the Yin/Yang
principle found in all MA's, but particularly strongly stressed in arts like
Taiji Chuan, Hsing I, Aikijujutsu, Aikido etc.  For instance in one scene
where Kane is charged head on, he simply side steps tha attack and kindly 
allows the man to pass merrily on his way, face first into a buck board.  No
matter what gripes you may have with the actor, or Hollywood, or whatever,
this is indeed a good show of MA principle.

Another good aspect of the show was its emphasis on responsibility  and 
non-interference, i.e. allowing people to live their lives as they see fit.
This was made clear in an episode where Kane flacshes back to  a situation
where a gambler comes his master for medical attention after having lost
his pinky in a wager.  The master tries to save the hand, but is not able
to and tells the man that his whole arm will have to come off..  The man 
refuses to allow tha amputation.  The monk waits.  At some point events 
conspire such that the sick man asks them to please proceed with the 
amputatiion, and they do so.  What I found proper hear was that the monks did
not take the "we must save you from yourself" attitude that is so nauseatingly
pervasive these days.  Tehy allowed the sick man his right to determine his
own fate after having informaed him as to the possibilities.  This alone
makes this somewhat silly and corny old series heads above anything else that
I have seen come out on network TV in at least the last 10 years, if not
more.  

And of course there's the part where the amputee ex-gambler tells his wife
"shut up woman".  That cinched it for me :).

Last, the sentiments expressed in the show seem to be pretty OK by me.  While
there is violence, it is not spectacular or gratuitous, which is more than
can be said for about 80% of everything on the idiot box today.

So folks, even though the technical merits of the MA leave something to be
desired and Carradines "I.... am..... ahumblemonk..... ofnogreatvalue" hokey
acting style is a bit goofy, I really think the basic quality of the series
was actually rather good.  It's just that one has to look a bit carefully to 
find the jewels hidden therein.  Ask yourself what you'd rather have your kids
weatch; this or Knots Landing (I'm guessing here, I've never seen this one, but
from what I have seen of the ads, it looks plently depraved, and I DON'T mean
that in the good sense of the word, seriously) or any one of the dozens of
shows that gives kids sick and twisted notions of what a relationship with a
man or woman should be, what sex should be, or what guns and REAL violence is.
That's the stuff *i'd* be raling against.  Pardon the soapbox %).

A fine and healthy weekend to you all!

	-Andy V.
self, and actions as well as an emphasis of respecting other people's.