Talk:A Touch of Zen

Pinyin: Hsia nu?
This has "Hsia nu" for the pinyin title of the movie, but this is not correct pinyin. I have changed it to "xiá nǚ." I think "hsia nu" is a different romanization (such as wade-giles or something). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.52.89.94 (talk) 05:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

1969?
I don't understand why this is categorized as a 69 movie, when it came out in 71. I'm changing it. If there's a reason why it should be '69, someone just let me know and change it back. MrCheshire 02:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it's weird. IMDB lists its release date as 1971 but calls it 'Touch of Zen (1969)', contravening its own dating guidelines. Cop 633 02:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Running time
I'm going to raise this (again). What are the sources for this film having "a running time of over three hours"? Even allowing for alterations in running time between film and DVD, I can't see how it can ever have been longer than three hours. Bear in mind its original run was in two parts. Then when it was editted together, the film had a running time approaching (but not over) three hours as the "recap" that occurs on recent DVDs would not have been included (for example in the Cannes print). Plus, the original Hong Kong print was cut to two and a half hours (source: "King Hu's A Touch of Zen" by Stephen Teo - who, incidentally, also talks about a running time for the uncut film at around three hours). Every time I change this, it gets changed back, but no one offers evidence of a 200 minute running time.--Cal42 (talk) 18:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The BBFC rated a version running 175 minutes: http://www.bbfc.co.uk/website/Classified.nsf/0/babb3821c615b23880256d1e00242e18?OpenDocument&ExpandSection=4#_Section4. --Crazymaner2003 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 23:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC).


 * The version I have, including credits, is 6022.56+5208.24=11230.80 seconds, or 187 minutes. That *is* over three hours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.115.31 (talk) 15:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Analysis?
Does anyone know of any analysis of the film? Things like what is the role of Ku Shen Chai's mother or the blind man. Mlewan (talk) 08:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I found something myself and added it to the page - a review by someone called Dennis Schwartz. (I got confused with the persons when I watched the movie on my iPod nano without subtitles.) Mlewan (talk) 08:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Jackie Chan - All editors please READ THIS!!
Jackie Chan did NOT have a role in this film. He worked as an extra/stuntman/whatever for a brief period of time. He should not be credited, and it CERTAINLY shouldn't be in his filmography! Seriously, guys, I'm thinking some people who edit this page and the Come Drink With Me page have never seen these movies, because if you had you wouldn't keep changing this!--Cal42 (talk) 21:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That's right Chan worked as a stuntman in this period. But he schould be credited in "A Touch of Zen" and "Come drink with me" because Chan mentions them in his autobiography "I am Jackie Chan". He even says that he liked to appear next to Cheng Pei Pei, a well known female martial artist at this time, in the movie "Come drink with me". And you won't trust the Number One source, Jackie Chan himself? 77.181.50.113 (talk) 12:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Pei Pei said on the Dragon Dynasty extras for Come Drink With Me that Jackie Chan was not in the movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.115.162 (talk) 07:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

He shouldn't be credited simply because he doesn't play even minor roles in these films. If he was actually visible for any period of time and spoke a few lines of dialogue then possibly. --Cal42 (talk) 13:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Missing information
This article is missing information on the film's production, release, and reception. These should be added to the article in order to completely cover the information on the film. There is also some information in the article that is unreferenced, for example there is no reference to actor Jackie Chan working as a stuntman in the film, this is just one of several unreferenced yet important pieces of information which need to be sourced. All of these changes need to occur in order to bring this article to its full potential.--Paleface Jack (talk) 15:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Taiwan
Like Dragon Inn, Touch of Zen only appears to be a Taiwanese production. It does not matter that the national of the people behind it, its based on where the production company is from. In this case, Taiwan. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:33, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * One the production companies of from Hongkong afaik. That aside we should follow the terminology authoritative sources use and the it is listed as hong kong - taiwanese as well (see comment in version history).--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If you could expand on that source in the prose explaining. Or better yet, could you provide how this is explained in that source? it seems counter to every other source. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:02, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what kind of explanation you want here. One of the most authoritative sources on subject (Stephen Teo's book) calls it hong kong - taiwanese movie (the reference was in the article before you deleted it) and so does btw the senses of cinema article on the movie.--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:24, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's funny, because Teo expands on this here, stating that in his opinion it should be considered to be a Hong Kong film, but he even mentions that its production company is Taiwanese", he merely says you could consider it a part of Hong Kong film history, but its not an official Hong Kong production, and labeling it that without explanation in the prose is very misleading to readers. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:21, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Other sources, such as The British Film Institute (here) and its most recent screening at the Cannes Film Festival (here) and other film sources such as Turner Classic Movies (here) all declare it Taiwanese. So far, that's several sources including the author you mentioned. I am okay with suggesting its influence and its role in Hong Kong cinema in the article using Teo's book, but it would very wrong to simply source it and list it how it is in the infobox. Its just not giving the audience the real figure with whats going on. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Well there are several slightly different issues here:
 * a) Do we simply go with the terminology used or suggest in the best sources?
 * b) Do we simply go by the location of the headquarters(?) of the involved production companies?
 * c) How do we handle the case of split or disagreeing sources?
 * If we apply a) I think it should be taiwanese-Hong kong based on Teo and Williams as one of the best (currently used) sources.
 * If we apply b) and look at Union Film, then the films seems clearly Taiwanese. But even that might not be quite as clear cut as it looks at first glance as some "sources" list additional production companies, whose nationality is not quite clear to me at the moment. IMDB and HKMDB both list "International Film Production" as another production company. IMDB lists it as Hong Kong/Taiwanese, HKMDB just as Taiwanese. Another problem might be that production companies may subsidiaries in several countries and receive money from several countries.
 * With regard to c) it might be useful not just settling for Taiwanese or Hong Kong-Taiwanese but to add a footnote providing a more detailed footnote (for instance Teo's assessment) or at least handle the issue in more detail in the article's main body.
 * --Kmhkmh (talk) 09:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Since it appears to be a bit confusing, its best to explain the situation to the users. I think Teo's book (which he notes, appears to be the only major study of the film since its release...at least in English!) that its shot in Taiwan and the the production company is Taiwanese then expand how its also part of Hong Kong film history due to the people working on it and such. Sometimes its best to leave out information in the infobox and lead that needs to be clarified a bit better. Thats what I am leaning towards now. Thoughts? Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:27, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Teo's book is the only book size study of the film i'm aware of. However there is a number of other studies in form of (journal) articles or book chapters and due to its influence it it often described or has an entry in various reference works on (Asian) film.
 * I'm fine with the information not being in the lead or the infobox already but just in a footnote or somewhere in the article's main body.
 * One other thing, that ideally still should be checked though, is deal with the second production company, in particular whether it was Hong Kong or Taiwan based.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * What is the second production company? I'm only seeing the one mentioned by Teo and have not heard of any second one. I know BFI lists one, but as it just says "International" and no other source stating that, i am assuming thats a flub. Cannes has more detailed information on the production and info here, and states the Union Film Company again. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:34, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The IMDB and HKMDB list that production company as well. A flub is conceivable, however it seems quite common to have more than one production company involved. However as long as we don't have anything more concrete, I'd go with pdf from the Cannes Festival. The database entries at IMDB, HKMDB and even the BFI aren't all that reliable. I found complete nonsense infos in the past at BFI entires already.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:38, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I am not against using databases per say, but I prefer to use written sources with prose and credited research than just pulling from databases. Lets apply information from the Cannes document (which we could use from archive.org as well so we don't lose valuable info on the film) and apply information about Teo, who also states more detailed information than any database can. Thanks for working this out! Beats an edit war any day. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:53, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Marital or martial?
In the section on "Themes" / "Transcendence to dichotomies", first of all is it not "transcendence of dichotomies" that is meant (i.e. rising above seeming dichotomies)--and then for the term "wu", isn't the intended meaning "martial" conduct (i.e. acts of combat) rather than "marital" (i.e. of marriage)? DSatz (talk) 06:03, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I see in the wuxia article that "wu" = martial--and the idea of this section does seem to be the union of opposites (a major theme of Zen Buddhism). So I've updated both of the wordings mentioned above. DSatz (talk) 06:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Feminism
It's so embarrassing for this site that the whole article reads like some sort of treatise on feminism based on one western critic in the 2000s who interpreted the whole movie through an anachronistic lens of western politics, when the movie has absolutely nothing to do with feminism. That is all. And then there's the opening paragraph suggesting that the movie "explores the theme of the ghost story," based on one scene where some Ming guards are tricked into thinking a house is haunted. Jesus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7081:7042:700:8CF2:25BD:88E4:5B06 (talk) 09:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC)