Theatrical combat doesn't seem real enough

[Justin Blackford]

After having seen so many movies trying to display historical fencing(and doing it quite inaccurately,too), I believe that the primary issue with most movie theatre combat is the lack of "suprise".
What I mean by "suprise" is that in a real fight for survival, neither party is sure as to what the other party is going to do, so tactics in mid-fight will change to adapt to what their opponent's moves are. Obviously, this is no major discovery to anyone who has ever sparred with foam or rubber wasters going full speed and with intent. But, I do think that most of these fight co-ordinators need to work on making fight sequences that seem realistic in the sense that each party is constantly adapting to one another's tactics and not just following a simple, "1,2,3,4,5" style of regulated moves that are so worked into the actors' heads that in practically every movie they always look like they expected every move that was coming. That seems to be what takes away the "realistic" feeling in most movies and theatrical productions.
However, there are some which I think were very well done. John Waller's directing of the fight scene between the Black Knight and the Green Knight in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" was probably the best and most realistic looking fight I have ever seen in a movie. I was suprised when I first saw it, because it was in MONTY PYTHON and the fight was hardly comical. In fact, it was quite easily the most brutal wake-up call to see how those kinds of fights really were.
I would also say that the duel between Hector and Achilles in "Troy" was decent. Though, there was some edge-on-edge occassionally and sometimes it would go back and forth from being "suprising" and then "predictable" between the fighters.
Mel Gibson's "Braveheart", although incredibly inaccurate about the life of William Wallace, showed some realistic sword moves, but unrealistic battle sequences. Nevertheless, Mel Gibson himself quoted the Scottish Wallace Clan re-enactors that trained him and the other actors as "real martial artists, who knew how to wield the claymores, axes, spears, and a whole bunch of other weapons effectively."
That's just my opinion on this stuff, but I would love to hear what anybody else thinks on the differences between theatrical combat and real combat.

Justin

[Jaron Bernstein]

Well, the real stuff tends to be over fast, messy and mixes up the ranges a lot.

[Allen Johnson]

well I certainly do both and there are a few things to consider. Bottom line is that no matter how much you study and know, you still have to do what the director wants. Thats your job. When I do films I have 3 priorities.
1) Safety- i dont want any actors, crew or equipment do be hurt or damaged on my watch. This means taking it easy to start with and working with good gear.
2) Make the fights serve the story and not serve themselves. We have to tell a story and the fights need to fit into that context. Otherwise you get things like Kingdom of Heaven where this kid suddenly is captain cool with a sword out of no where. This is where I have to make the director happy.
3)Historical Accuracy- This is where i really try to keep as much historical integrity as possible.

There are limits with personal ability and training time- How long do you have to train these actors?
With most films I work on there is always a budget issue. As well as a short time span to work it into. Alot of things will be shot great but then get chopped up in the editing room. A film I did a while back had a few rapier duels in them. They looked great till the got to the editors and they decided it was taking too long and just chopped a few of the sequences out. What resulted is movements and positions that dont match up. Making it look messy, confusing and awkward.

[Jeffrey Hull]

I liked the fighting in *Rob Roy* -- specially the final duel, which I think bespeaks a knoweldge of Silver on the part of its fight-choreographer, William Hobbs -- who also did *Three Musketeers*, *Ladyhawke*, *Count of Monte Cristo* and *The Duellists*, among others. His stuff seems better than most, even if it cannot be totally accurate (that pesky safety issue, heh-heh)

JH

[Shane Smith]

The biggest problem with real combat techniques in an entertainment environment as I see it is the shear deadly effectiveness of the method. In most freeplay, someone will be cut within 4-5 blows in my experience.That would not make for a very exciting fight scene I'm afraid as there are minimal opportunities to banter witty dialog back and forth. <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />

[Mike Chidester]

Well, I don't know about that, Shane. Two skilled combatants can go for much longer than that if neither of them gets a lucky shot in. I've seen Stew spar with come of the advanced student for many exchanges without either landing a blow.

If a coreographer just arranges for both fighters to be very lucky in their defense (near misses instead of killing blows), the fight could last for a satisfying amount of time. The peons should go down fast, but key fights could be made to last a while without straining suspension of disbelief.

[Allen Johnson]

I really think both work- just depends on the story. I do know that I would love to see more quick ending fights...but again, that all depends on the story. Going back to Rob Roy, I really liked that it did that with 2 of Rob's fights-- both ending with a quick counter kill. We dont really see him fight till the end. Alot of the fights that we see in practice also have a good amount of waiting/baiting involved. Kind of pressing eachothers distance and range to see if someone will attack out of frustration.

[Shane Smith]

One bout of mine with Jake lasted probably up to a couple of minutes in NY a couple of years ago.That is the longest match I have ever seen or been involved in. In most cases in my experience(even fencing with Stew personally for about an hour and a half straight in a cage) the bouts last only 4 to five blows as stated above(4-5 blows from the attacker...not total).There are of course exceptions to every general rule. <img src="/forum/images/icons/cool.gif" alt="" />

[alexwalczak]

The only real fights that seem to hapen in the movies were in the Lord of the Rings were they had a real sword master.

My two sense . <img src="/forum/images/icons/cool.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/icons/cool.gif" alt="" />

[Allen Johnson]

Well there are more than a few things in LOTR that dont really work and are deffinatley fantasy. There are a few other film, I feel that do a much better job. I'd also really hesitate to call anyone in this day and age a "sword master". I personally feel that title cannot be attained with out consitent real use in real combat- which dosent happen at all.

[Ian Woolley]

part of the problem seems to stem from the fact that the actions are either made larger, and therfore easier to see by the untrained eye, or slower, once again so the untrained eye can more easily watch the action.
Maybe if the fight scenes were sped up more they might seem more realistic, maybe even the really bad ones.

[Patrick Hardin]

"The only real fights that seem to hapen in the movies were in the Lord of the Rings were they had a real sword master."

Yeah, but the "master" was Bob Anderson, a former stand-in for Errol Flynn. This is just a personal beef I have, but I've always felt that Errol Flynn and his kind have done more to distort the image of RMA and Western swordsmanship than anything else, simply because they were the big swashbuckler heroes during Hollywood's so-called golden age. Errol Flynn presented an image that it's still hard for people to see past, and so many turn to more Eastern systems and our heritage consequently becomes distorted and forgotten.

I remember watching some of the behind-the-scenes stuff on LOTR, when an assistant fight-director was talking about Bob Anderson's style, and he mentioned a time when Bob was teaching the stunt guys some kind of manouver, and the assistant said, "Bob, in a real fight, that wouldn't happen." Bob's reply was, "But my boy, this is the movies!" Anderson has a point, I'll admit, but only to a degree. A little experimentation here and there with more sound martial content in movies today by other fight directors has shown that truth can definitely be more entertaining than pure fiction. It's time for Hollywood to take it's obsession with "historical accuracy" in movies beyond clothing and set design and move on to combat. Errol Flynn is dead. We've had enough swashbuckling. It's time for downright blows! And little by little, movies may be taking a step in the right direction.

Sorry for the rant, I just hate the image of that grinning fop swinging his sword around like a toy in that old Robin Hood movie. It really grates on me. But like I say, it's just a personal issue I have with movies like that.

Patrick Hardin

[Benjamin Abbott]

The biggest problem with real combat techniques in an entertainment environment as I see it is the shear deadly effectiveness of the method.

Well, if they're both fighting well in Silver's "true fight" and trying to avoid dying, then, at least according to the master himself, the fight should end in a draw.

[Justin Blackford]

I think it's funny that you bring up Errol Flynn. My grandfather knew Basil Rathbone and was friends with Doug Fairbanks, Jr. and used to train in classical fencing with Fairbanks when they were young. He also got to meet Errol Flynn once. I asked my grandfather not too long ago, "Was Errol Flynn a real fencer?"
He just grinned and said, "Not really. He was an actor. Basil Rathbone was the master swordsman, but even he had to do really fancy and unrealistic moves to please the audiences."

Justin

[Shane Smith]

I am not as skilled as Master Silver and so therefore cannot claim to have the ability to fence and remain completely unharmed in all circumstances <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />