Sir John Du Cane | |
---|---|
![]() Major General Sir John Philip Du Cane by Francis Dodd | |
Born | South Kensington, London, England | 5 May 1865
Died | 5 April 1947 Westminster, London, England | (aged 81)
Allegiance | United Kingdom |
Service/ | British Army |
Years of service | 1884–1931 |
Rank | General |
Unit | Royal Artillery |
Commands held | Malta British Army of the Rhine Western Command XV Corps |
Battles/wars | Second Boer War First World War |
Awards | Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath Mentioned in Despatches |
General Sir John Philip Du Cane, GCB (5 May 1865 – 5 April 1947) was a British Army officer. He held high rank during the First World War, most notably as Major General Royal Artillery at General Headquarters in 1915 when the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) was expanding rapidly, as General Officer Commanding XV Corps 1916–18, then from April 1918 as liaison officer between Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig and the Allied Generalissimo Ferdinand Foch. After the war he was Master-General of the Ordnance.
YouTube Encyclopedic
-
1/5Views:24 114 422253 944103 2418 15110 870
-
Jackie Chan - How to Do Action Comedy
-
Thermostat Wiring Diagrams! 10 Most Common!
-
👨🏽🦯🦯How to change the tip on blind cane
-
Tips on Shaping Oboe Cane with Jonathan Marzluf
-
클레이 해바라기 만들기
Transcription
<i>--Hello? This is Jackie speaking. Hi my name is Tony and this is Every Frame a Painting. Some filmmakers can do action. Others can do comedy. But for 40 years, the master of combining them has been Jackie Chan. These days, there's a lot of movies that combine funny scenes with fight scenes. But even when the movie’s good the comedy and action seem to be two directors and two different styles. And that’s why Jackie’s so interesting. In his style, action IS comedy. And his work shows that the same filmmaking principles apply whether you’re trying to be funny or kick ass. So let’s dive in. If you’d like to see the names of the films as I’m talking, press the CC button below. Ready? Let’s go. So how does Jackie create action that is also funny? First off, he gives himself a disadvantage. No matter what film, Jackie always starts beneath his opponents. He has no shoes. He’s handcuffed. He has a bomb in his mouth. From this point, he has to fight his way back to the top. Each action creates a logical reaction. And by following the logic... we get a joke. In movies, this comedic style goes back to the silent clowns like Chaplin, Lloyd, and Keaton. But I think Jackie has distilled it down to one line of dialogue: <i>--Please! I said I don't want trouble! Because he’s the underdog, Jackie has to get creative which brings us to point number two: he uses anything around him. This is the most famous aspect of his style. take something familiar, do something unfamiliar. I’ve seen him fight with chairs dresses chopsticks keyboards Legos refrigerators and of course: Not only does this make each fight organic and grounded it also gives us jokes that couldn’t happen anywhere else. Number 3: Jackie likes clarity. He doesn’t do dark scenes where everything is color corrected blue. If his opponent wears black, he wears white. And if his opponent’s in white, then he’s stylin' His framing's so clear that in each shot he’s setting up the next bit of action. Here, even though we’re watching the stuntman, two-thirds of frame is the staircase. A few seconds later, we see why He keeps things clear by rarely using handheld or dolly moves. <i>--Like American movies, there’s a lotta movement. When the camera angle moves <i>--that means the actors, they don’t know how to fight. In slow-motion you can see how the camera operator swings around to make the hits seem more violent. But since Jackie CAN fight... <i>--I never move my camera. Always steady. Wide-angle. <i>--Let him see I jumping down, I do the flip, I do the fall When you shoot this way, everything looks more impressive because action and reaction are in the same frame. Notice how you can always see Jackie, the car and the wall at the same time. But a similar stunt from Rush Hour 3 never includes all the elements in the same shot, and it doesn’t work. The same principle applies to comedy. This shot, directed by Sammo Hung, shows us the punch, the bad guy’s face and Jackie’s face all in one. Now check out the same gag in Shanghai Noon. Here, action and reaction are separate shots. It kinda works, but not nearly as well. Why don’t more directors do this? Because of number 5: they don’t have enough time. Jackie is perfectionist willing to do as many takes as necessary to get it right And in Hong Kong, he’s supported by the studio which gives him months to shoot a fight. <i>--And the most difficult thing is when I throw the fan and it comes back. <i>More than 120 takes. Those kind of scenes, you say "Oh, Jackie's good." <i>It's not good. You can do it. Except do you have the patience or not? When I rewatch his work, these little things are the ones I’m most impressed by. He doesn’t need to do them, and they eat into his budget. But he still does them because he wants to. And it’s that “going above and beyond” that I respect and admire. <i>--But in America, they don’t allow you to do that. <i>You know, because money. And his American work is missing something else: <i>--And there’s a rhythm also, to the way that the shots are performed <i>and also the way they’re edited, and Jackie said something very interesting <i>that the audience don’t know the rhythm’s there until it’s NOT there. Jackie’s fight scenes have a distinct musical rhythm, a timing he works out on set with the performers. <i>--Ready, action. Stay where you are! <i>Stay where you are, don't chase me. <i>See? Everybody looks good. Even experienced martial artists have trouble with it. In his earliest films, you see him learning the timing from Yuan Heping and it’s very much like Chinese opera. But by the mid-1980s, working with his own stunt team He had something totally unique. In America, many directors and editors don’t understand this timing. And they ruin it by cutting on every single hit. By in Hong Kong, directors hold their shots long enough for the audience to feel the rhythm. <i>--The most important part is the editing. <i>Most directors, they don’t know how to edit. <i>Even the stunt coordinators, they don’t know how to edit. Hong Kong directors like Jackie and Sammo cut a particular way. In the first shot, you hit your opponent in the wide. In the second shot, you get a nice close-up. But when you cut the shots together, you DON'T match continuity. At the end of shot 1, the elbow is here. At the beginning of shot 2, it's all the way back here. These 3 frames are for the audience’s eyes to register the new shot. And they make all the difference. <i>--I start from here, then here, But two shots, combined <i>That's power. In other words, show it TWICE and the audience's mind will make it one hit that’s stronger. By contrast, modern American editing doesn't show the hit at all. At the end of shot 1, the leg is here. At the beginning of shot 2, it’s in the same place, going backwards. But because they cut at the exact frame of the hit it doesn’t feel like a hit. A lot of people think this is because of the PG-13 rating but even R-rated films do this now It looks like a bunch of people flailing around instead of a bunch of people getting hurt. Ouch. Which brings us to number 8: pain. Unlike a lot of action stars, who try to look invincible Jackie gets hurt. A lot. Half the fun of his work is that not only are the stunts impressive There’s always room for a joke. Pain humanizes him. Because no matter how skilled he is He still gets smacked in the face. In fact, Jackie’s face may actually be his greatest asset Many times the look he gives is all it takes to sell a joke. Like when he does an entire fight holding a chicken. Or dressed as Chun-li And last, Jackie’s style always ends with a real payoff for the audience. By fighting his way from the bottom, he earns the right to a spectacular finish. He doesnt win cause hes a better fighter He wins because he doesn’t give up This relentlessness makes his finales really impressive and really funny And it’s in direct contrast to a lot of his American work where bad guys are defeated because someone shoots them COME ON. But most of all, I think Jackie’s style proves something: action and comedy aren’t that different. In both genres, we want to see our best performers And I think a lot of modern action directors are failing completely. These actors are skilled artists, some of the best in the world. Why are the directors so unskilled? Why am I paying money to NOT see the action? <i>--Whatever you do, do the best you can because the film lives forever. <i>"No, because that day it was raining and the actor don't have time." <i>I said, would you go to every theater to tell the audience? No. <i>The audience sits in the theater: good movie, bad movie that’s all Exactly. This work will last. And on that note, I leave you with the greatest death scene in film history.
Military career
Du Cane was commissioned a lieutenant in the Royal Artillery in February 1884,[1] promoted to captain on 4 March 1893, and to major on 14 February 1900.[2][3]
![](/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/94/Group_portrait_of_officers_at_the_British_Army_Staff_College%2C_Camberley%2C_1906.jpg/220px-Group_portrait_of_officers_at_the_British_Army_Staff_College%2C_Camberley%2C_1906.jpg)
Du Cane served in the Second Boer War, and was appointed a staff officer for lines of communication in South Africa in September 1900.[4] Following the end of hostilities in early June 1902, he left Cape Town on board the SS Assaye,[5] and arrived at Southampton the next month. He was mentioned in despatches and received a brevet promotion to lieutenant colonel in the South Africa honours list published on 26 June 1902.[6]
He then served at the Staff College, Camberley, as Deputy Assistant Adjutant General from 1905−1907.[7]
Du Cane became Commander Royal Artillery for 3rd Division in 1911.[1]
Du Cane served in the First World War initially as a brigadier general on the General Staff of III Corps.[1] In 1915, as Major General Royal Artillery, he was Artillery Advisor at General Headquarters; William Robertson, Chief of Staff to the BEF in 1915, later stated that he had laid the organisational groundwork for the massive expansion of BEF artillery during the war.[8][1] He was posted to the Ministry of Munitions in 1916 and then became General Officer Commanding XV Corps in 1916.[1] In that capacity, he was closely involved in Operation Hush, a planned invasion on the Belgian coast.[9] On 12 April 1918, against the backdrop of the German "Georgette" Offensive and Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig's demands for French reinforcements, he was appointed liaison officer between Haig and the Allied Generalissimo General Foch.[10]
After the war, Du Cane made his home in London at 4 Upper Brook Street, Mayfair.[11] Du Cane was appointed Master-General of the Ordnance in 1920 and then General Officer Commanding-in-Chief for Western Command in 1923.[1] He was General Officer Commanding-in-Chief for British Army of the Rhine from 1924 until 1927 when he became Governor and Commander-in-Chief of Malta. He was also Aide-de-Camp General to the King from 1926 to 1930. He retired in 1931.[1]
Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Liberal | Samuel Pattinson | 10,954 | 54.5 | +0.4 | |
Unionist | John Du Cane | 9,135 | 45.5 | −0.4 | |
Majority | 1,819 | 9.0 | +0.8 | ||
Turnout | 20,089 | 80.9 | −0.6 | ||
Registered electors | 24,821 | ||||
Liberal hold | Swing | +0.4 |
Works
- DuCane, Lt. General Sir John, Marshal Foch, London: privately printed, 1920
References
- ^ a b c d e f g Liddell Hart Centre for Military Archives
- ^ "No. 27175". The London Gazette. 20 March 1900. p. 1878.
- ^ Hart′s Army list, 1903
- ^ Hart′s Army list, 1901
- ^ "The Army in South Africa – Troops returning home". The Times. No. 36804. London. 26 June 1902. p. 10.
- ^ "No. 27448". The London Gazette (Supplement). 26 June 1902. pp. 4191–4194.
- ^ Travers, Tim (2009). The Killing Ground. Pen and Sword. p. 284. ISBN 978-1844158898.
- ^ Robertson p222-3
- ^ The Long, Long Trail
- ^ Harris 2008, pp. 469–471.
- ^ "Upper Brook Street: North Side Pages 200-210 Survey of London: Volume 40, the Grosvenor Estate in Mayfair, Part 2 (The Buildings). Originally published by London County Council, London, 1980". British History Online. Retrieved 12 July 2020.
- ^ The Liberal Year Book, 1931
Sources
- Harris, J.P. (2008). Douglas Haig and the First World War (2009 ed.). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-89802-7.
- Robertson, Sir William Robert (1921). From Private to Field Marshal. London: Constable. ASIN B008TCWACC.
![](/s/i/modif.png)