Who are these sword instructors on movie sets?

[Ben Way]

Hello,

I've been reading up on European martial arts for the past couple months and have spent dozens of hours reading your vast array of articles on the subject. After reading some articles stating that there is no direct continuation of the European martial arts heritage it caused me to think about all of these "instructors" that teach actors how to use medieval or fantasy weapons on such set as Lord of the Rings for example. Do these people have any real certifications what so ever, do they just claim to know how to use medieval weapons? It seems that ARMA is the premiere organization for researching and rediscovering how medieval arms were really used, but how do these actor instructors know what they are doing? Or don't they really? Not just for movies either, but also businesses like Medieval Times kind of restaurant and show I’m sure some of you are familiar with. Just thought I would throw this question out there if anyone wants to take a shot at it.

[Brian Hunt]

Hi Ben,

it is called stage combat and it is meant to tell a story, not defend your life with it. The same goes for medieval times.

hope that helps.

Brian Hunt
GFS

[JeanryChandler]

I think they could tell a better story with more realistic WMA combat, to me it looks a lot better than that mixture of Hollywood kung-fu / stage combat stuff they do now.

JR

[Ben Strickling]

I think they could tell a better story with more realistic WMA combat, to me it looks a lot better than that mixture of Hollywood kung-fu / stage combat stuff they do now.

Definitely true. Though stage combat is, of course, nothing new. Even in the Renaissance when WMA were still practiced, stage combat was often used. Does anyone know how much Renaissance stage combat differed from actual martial arts? It'd be interesting to see what they adapted and how closely (or not) they stuck to actual combat techniques.

I agree that much of the stage combat used now days could use a nice dose of realism to tell a better story. I wonder if this was a problem back then as well, or if the pervalence of a system of combat that was commonly practiced required a much more realistic interpretation of fighting methods.

Any thoughts?

[Mike Chidester]

I think this quote pretty much sums it up:

Early on Döbringer affirms the uniqueness of Liechtenauer’s knowledge as he openly condemns the “fencing around” of the Leychmeisteren [“dance-masters”], itinerant performers who he says do not possess the true craft. He complains they use wide and unnecessary motions to entertain in show-fights by declaring how, “rightful fencing does not have any beautiful and weidlich paryrn [“broad parries”] and Weiterumefechten [“fencing around”], by which people want to be impressed.” He criticizes these show-fighters by saying they defend statically with rigid blocks instead of counter-strikes and “do two or three strikes out of one” because “they want to be venerated by men who do not understand the art.” He also complains of the “drumming” and “new inventions” of the “dancing-masters” that differ from the true art. As if describing modern day stage-combatants, he states they do this by means of stiff parries and large exaggerated movements “where they stand firmly and perform far-reaching and long strikes, slowly and clumsily.” He then adds that, “With these strikes they often miss and delay and expose themselves a good deal.” Again, as if critiquing today’s choreographed theatrical-fencing, he declares they have no real “reach in their swordsmanship” and that theirs is only good for “school fencing” not real combat. Nothing good, he tells us, can result from such “exercises and getting used to things.” By this “getting use to things” we may interpret as his referring to pre-arranged pretend-fights or exchanges of artificial sequences employed in such entertainments. Later masters sometimes called these dancing swordsmen, Gaukler, meaning “juggler”, in a derogatory reference to traveling carnival performers. They further called them Klopffechter, “tap fighters” or “tapping swordsmen,” meaning show fencers who made weak but noisy blows for spectators.

Döbringer claimed that though the fencing of the Leychmeisteren was also derived from Liechtenauer’s teachings, they needlessly multiplied the number of techniques as well as gave them new names and made up useless tricks. Such fencers he argued wanted to impress audiences with excessive motions that in real combat would uncover themselves. He also complained they lacked a proper sense of timing and distance as a result. Similarly, Ringeck taught, “Beware of those show-fighters who parry and fight using wide, sweeping motions.” Interestingly, Döbringer felt that while such fencing could be done in learning in the schoolroom—schulfechten—it had no value in the real world of combat where one needed to be precise and a single blow that hits counted far more than several that missed. Amusingly, this tradition of wide-parrying and ineffective exaggerated movement in swordplay for entertainment of the uneducated public continues nowadays with a variety of modern stunt-fencers and martial-acrobat performers. Naturally, it is still mistaken for the real craft by the uninformed. (We might conclude then, that criticism of stage-combat by martial artists is as much a tradition as the practice of stage-combat itself.)

[Tyler Borror]

The people who choreograph duels, or large scale combat scenes must know to some extent thier history, and accuracy. however, the theactrical edge on edge static parrys and rediculous jumps are just that; ment to be on screen/stage and thrill people who dont know a rapier form an axe. just appriciate it for what it is. nothing more.
*just my 2 cents.....*

[Allen Johnson]

As both a martial artist and someone who works in the independent film community (I have done fight choreography for a few small films) , I can see both sides of the coin here. I am actually in the process of writing some extensive commentary of a new approach to stage combat that I am considering trying to get published. There are alot of elements of both sides that need to be considered. Here is a small excerpt of a much larger artilce or set of articles I am working on:
What Martial Artists Need to Know About Films
Frequently I will encounter well-meaning martial artists expressing concern, or more commonly, disdain for what they witness on screen and on stage. What they don’t usually understand is the creative process and mindset of the filmmakers when composing a fight scene in the middle of their story. The strongest piece of advice that I have for martial artist and filmmaker alike is, THE FIGHT MUST SERVE THE STORY! What does this mean? It means that even though you may have the best swordsman on the planet, the most accurate techniques ever captured on celluloid, the most period clothing and armor seen by the public, if that fight doesn’t have a purpose, then it is a poor film. Fighting should be regarded as a part of the dialogue. It should be a physical assault of conflicting goals. Just like music adds an emotional undertone with its themes, tempos and tones, so should a good fight reflect what is going on in the plot- not just who wins and how. A good exercise might be to actually write in emotional thoughts and feelings corresponding with each of the choreographed sequences. Martial artists also need to be aware that what they see in practice or through a trained eye may not be what the audience sees. It might be necessary to slightly slow down movements to make them discernable on film. Footwork and body orientation might also need to be tweaked a little in order to get the proper view and framing. There is also something to be said for live performances and the distance from the action to the sitting audience. Gross exaggerations are common on stage but that can be curtailed without losing an audience because of visible rage. Getting a test audience to sit in the back and give an opinion before opening night might be valuable here. Bottom line is that filmmakers are storytellers, first and foremost. Lights, sets, costumes, special effects and stunts are all tools that are used to tell the story. There is not enough room here to go into what is “good” filmmaking or good storytelling. There is a myriad of books on the subject matter that one can refer to, in order to gain a better appreciation of this.
In the context of a fight (whether it’s with swords or not), there are many things to be taken into consideration from the story aspect. Why are they fighting? What is each of the fighters, fighting for? What does each of the fighters have to loose? Will these emotions manifest themselves in the fighter’s technique? Do the fighters temperament change within the fight? Will that change their technique? I was working on a short film once where I was approached with the challenge of choreographing a fight where the two actors, characters were performing a choreographed fight in a play and then one of the actors goes crazy and starts fighting for real. I had to portray what was first a rehearsed, controlled, stage fight and then changed into a serious life and death struggle. All that was done within the needs of the story while using legitimate, historical sword techniques. It can be done.

What Filmmakers Need to Know About Historical Martial Arts
Now I address the filmmakers who want to have that fierce and passionate sword fight they have always longed for in their quasi-epic flick. If you are at all concerned about historical accuracy, then the strongest piece of advice I have is, DO THE RESEARCH! It often baffles me how a screenwriter or director can go through months and months of research on a character, language or culture, but when it comes to clothing, armor, weapons and their use- they suddenly drop the ball. Often times I feel the blame has more to do with so-called “Fight Masters” or worse, “Sword Masters”. I will focus more on the title and role of the “Sword Master” later, but for now prospective actors, writers, directors should be informed that many (if not the majority) of these people have very limited, to no knowledge of historical armed combat. Filmmakers should be aware that they too can check up on their fight choreographers and check and see if they are doing things right. There are many books and websites by serious scholars who can give you a much better picture of what it should look like. With time and research, one can learn what sources to trust and which ones are armchair quarterbacks.
Another thing many directors and fight choreographers fall victim to is the draw of “the cool”. Many times in the course of my work, I have been approached by directors and actors asking me to put a special “cool” move into the fight scene. What has to be understood is that what may seem cool in your head may not make good martial sense or fit in with your historical goals. Inevitably this move usually involves some sort of spinning attack or a leaping/ jumping one. With almost no exception, turning your back on an opponent for any reason is flat out suicide. Spinning + Swords = Death. Why spin around when you can face them and see what you are doing? Any swordsman with even the ability to lift a sword would be able to run through an opponent who spins on him. Just don’t do it! There are no super moves. There are no “unblockable” moves. Many directors want fight scenes to be as flashy and fantastic as the video games their kids play. It just doesn’t work like that. However, one needs not despair. As will be shown here, there are hundreds of historically accurate sword techniques that are just as exciting, if not more so, than some fanciful game.
Lastly is a plead, to please, take some time! If you want something great, it will take a while. It takes a fight choreographer a while to put together a complicated and potentially dangerous fight and an even longer while for actors to learn it. More often than not, actors will be coming into a film or play having never lifted a sword in their life. And if they have, chances are that they were inappropriately or poorly trained- which means you will have to break them of old habits before you teach new ones. Ever single film I have worked on the director has expressed the desire that they wish they had scheduled in more time to work on the fights.1

Notes to: What Filmmakers Need to Know About Historical Martial Arts
1. Not only does it take a while to learn the fight, but the ordering and shipping of weapons and armor can often take longer than expected. Give yourself plenty of time for things to go wrong, orders to be messed up and shipping to arrive late. You don’t want to be stuck the day before shooting wondering if the swords are going to be there on time. It’s happened.


PS- alot of this stuff is elementary to those of us who have been doing WMA for a while now, but its written with average Joe Schmoe movie goer in mind.

[Rod-Thornton]

Well, as I am away from the home reference librairy at the moment, I cannot check my sources, but....
...I seem to recall in John Clement's book(s) there were several passages re: theatre/stage combat, and how, while it was vastly different from bona-fide martial arts actions, it was nonetheless valid to the point of its real purpose (safe story-telling entertainment).

Just my opinion, but whilst gross inaccuracies are to be avoided in the interest of realism, there certainly is a credible place for valid (read the word: "safe" here) choreography of SIMULATED sword play. It serves the story and is entertaining, although I too wince at some of the techniques you see (like 4 well trained knights taking one-at-a-time turns at an untrained blacksmith who whoops 'em all in the latest Ridley Scott epic).

So to point, these instructors are likely more instructors of SAFETY rather than instructors of swordplay. The same holds true for instructors of modern fight scenes with modern guns. Case in point, I cannot ever recall shooting something by lowering the rifle to my hip and spraying the area with lead...having always held the weapon along a sight line and shot...but I still enjoy the action film. Why would swordplay on film look any different, unless every firearm instructor also winces with each scene from hollywood?

I think they're fine with what they do but the best approach is education...like this forum and the organization in general, that recognizes such activities and labors to disseminate real martial activities from simulated ones through education.

Think about it though, our martial art focuses on quick encounters, conservation of motion, and rapid/simultaneous dispatch of attacks, due to the physical demands of hand-to-hand fight....however realistic it is, how entertaining would it be to the drama of a fight to have a quick, 1-stroke fight on scene? (Yeah, I prefer those in freeplay, but not on the silver screen). So these instructors must take what they know, and fluff it up some to add the drama and uncertainty to a tale.

-I don't think we should bash 'em for it, unless they are billing themselves as true "combat" experts...and not swordplay experts. Then, yeah man, expose the false nature with the true art.

[M Wallgren]

I agree with all above.

I have a thought though! The style of shootouts in the "spagetti-westerns" of the late 60:es and in the 70:eswhere adopted from the sword fights in Akira Kurosawas Samurai flicks, witch in my oppinions are a few of the best ever to appear on a silver screen.

We know that the fights probaly didn´tlast that many seconds back in the days, a little like a gunfight, so why the need of the handbaging in the movies? Why not present the agony and the inner strugle just before the fight and then just a few quick moves as a climax. That would in my oppinion also be cinematically much better and you could drag the scene out in a verry exiting way.

But I am not a film director so what do I know? <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

[Allen Johnson]

I agree that no action or a long pause in the action can be just as exciting and suspenseful as non-stop action. That anticipation builds drama.

[John_Clements]

Essentially, they are actor-stuntmen who enjoy fencing and martial arts and entertaining performance. They are self-taught and self-certified from within their own self-referential community that essentially acts as a guild and, because film producers and directors really don't know any better, have a monopoly lock on the profession.

The craft of stage/theatrical combat, or fight director for film &amp; television now, actually is a necessary tradition that goes back to the ancient Greeks. ...But then, going back to the 14th century there's also something of a tradition of sorts of real fighting men and fencing instructors complaining about the craft of stunt fencing as well.

Today, each activity seems to influence the other to some degree and sometimes the two blur. One thing is for sure, practicing to fake fight for entertainment display is not equivalent to training martially for combat effectiveness in a genuine fighting skill, and expertise in choreographing pretend fights is certainly not the same as expertise in a system of self-defense. One is for storytelling the other is for combat resolution. Though the former could definitely use more of the latter, we shouldn't confuse the two.

I think that sums it up.

JC

[Jeremy Martin]

Post deleted by Gene Tausk

[JeanryChandler]

Are you sure he wants that repeated on a public web forum?

JR

[Jaron Bernstein]

John,

I have seen in a few recent movies some very good quality , realistic unarmed fighting. I don't see why the same can't happen for swords. Have any senior ARMAteers thought of approaching those who make movies and raising the idea?

[Gene Tausk]

Hi Jaron:

My brother works in the movie industry (visual effects supervisor) and has worked with some of the industry's well-known fight choreographers. He has been in Hollywood for many years and is a member of the Academy. From what he tells me, a lot of the final result depends not only on the director, who may have one vision, but the producer(s), fight choreographers, the actors and actresses (never underestimate star power), my brother's job (who ultimately is responsible for how the film will look with all of the CGI inserted), the stuntpeople and, hard as it is to believe, even what equipment is and is not available (although, as CGI continues to improve, this will be more a moot point).

With so many competing visions, sometimes it is no wonder that what is put on the screen is questionable. However, I am optimistic that as CGI continues to improve (and my brother is at work <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" /> ) we will see better fight scenes with weapons.

Gotta start somewhere.


-----------&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;gene tausk
SFS
Study Group Leader - Houston ARMA Southside