So what’s your problem with stage combat?

Gee, that’s a loaded question. It might be rephrased to ask, ‘What’s stage combat’s problem with historical fencing?’  But alright, I’ll bite.  My “problem” with it is only when it’s presented as if it is a “martial art”, when in fact it is a performance art, it’s entertainment.  That’s it purpose. We all know it, even if some don’t like to admit it.  The facts are, a martial art is results oriented, stage combat is display oriented. A martial art is about ending fights; stage combat is about prolonging them. In one you minimize your movements for efficiency and deception, in the other you exaggerate them for effect. Stage combat is illusion. A martial art is effectiveness.  In fighting, we seek to hit, they in contrast seek to miss –or at least, only look like they are hitting.  Stage combat relies heavily on communication and cooperation between its participants. But as hoplologist Hunter Armstrong noted, “In combat, the only purpose of communication with an adversary is to mislead or to lure.”  Make sense? 

So you are not against it in any way?

Of course not!  It has a place and is needed. I mean, stage combat has a long and noble tradition that goes back to ancient Greece, but for decades we essentially have had professional fakers teaching how to choreograph fake fights without having reconstructed the real thing in the first place.   We’re busy trying to understand how it was really done, not create theories of pretend display.  As my colleague Mark Rector said his teacher told him, all these stage combat folk are all faking it, but none of them have any ideal of what the “it” is they are faking.  As John Waller said of his stage combat, “Reality first --tricks are for the impressionable.” 

Anything else you can add?

I think it needs to be understood that, I am a martial artist fencer. I have no interest in theatrical or stage fighting or in choreographed fencing for entertainment or education. I am concerned only with developing skills in weapon handling by reconstructing the historical methods.  I have nothing but respect for performers and arrangers who contact me in search of more accurate and realistic fighting.  It’s the ones who assert they’re already doing “real fighting” in spite of clear evidence to the contrary, that I hold in disdain.

Let me be very clear that I am talking here specifically about stage combat in TV, cinema, and fight shows, and not that conducted for classical theater.   For live theater, I am willing to accept any fighting as an abstract, like the fake trees on the set or the mood lighting, etc.   When it comes to the others though, I am much less forgiving. As stage combatant Eric Slyter once wrote, “The problem is that most stage combat systems are simplified to be learned quickly and safely by nearly anyone –regardless of martial aptitude.”  He’s right.  I recall Tony Wolf, the New Zealand fight director, once telling me of a girl who, after coming to his fisticuffs class, said she felt “more confidant” walking home alone at night, to which he said his response was shock. She failed to recognize the difference between what he was teaching as pretend and real self-defense techniques.  I get similar things in my own classes. After seeing my class once, one student, certified by the SAFD, responded that while the fighting was good, they saw nobody “dying very well”.  I was floored by that level of ignorance. 

Your criticisms of stage combat are being echoed by many others now, aren’t they?

There were many saying it long before me. Back in 1960 Oakeshott himself wrote in Archaeology of Weapons that, “Most people are to some extent familiar with sword-play –stage sword-play. In these this us usually well enough done, but all of it is based more upon modern fencing practice than upon the realities of even eighteenth-century rapier fighting. When it comes to combats between medieaval warriors we see a tremendous amount of clashing of sword against sword and not much else.  The real thing was, I believe, quite different.” (p. 158) I would add little changed in the intervening centuries except that Asian swordplay became a huge influence. What my objection then to stage combat is, in a nutshell, is that it has consistently misrepresented the actual handling and function of historical European arms. It invariably distorts the true performance, weight, lethality, and effectiveness of our martial heritage.  That’s it.  It makes my job, as a martial arts teacher, all the harder. Virtually every student who walks in off the street has 70-80 years of movie and TV sword fights stuck in their head. We have to unlearn them all the clichés and nonsense that doesn’t work in fights with real weapons. (Whereas in contrast, my theatrical friends say the opposite: they get students who come in wanting to spar and fight and have to be taught to move and act together under direction). 

What about the argument that safety is the first concern of stage combat, not realism?

I object to the assertion that, in contrast to martial arts or fencing, stage combat has to be “safety” focused, since anyone who practices a real martial art about real  genuinely lethal techniques performed with realistic speed and energy knows full well that safety is our number one concern.  It has to be.  When you are carefully arranging a mutual pretend fight how can you say safety is more an issue there than people attempting to explore serious techniques as they were really used in the past?   Besides, there’s a whole lot that we practice that simply can’t be done in stage combat precisely because it would be too dangerous.  The choreographer J. D. Martinez for example admitted that among the historical techniques which were inappropriate for stage-combat, because they applied only to actual combat, was the very idea of “simultaneous attack and defense” as well as “crippling and grappling maneuvers”.  Yet, we know these elements made up a tremendous portion of real swordplay. 

Isn’t it frequently pointed out that stage combat is about entertainment and furthering a story and has no responsibility to be realistic?

Sure…unless the scenes is supposed to reflect actual historical fighting and not invent a fantasy one as they do for example in so many musketeer and Zorro movies.  I like to compare the whole situation to kung fu. Nobody would deny that there is an operatic from of kung fu that’s much less about realistic self-defense or historical weapon use than it is about abstract exaggerated “theatrical” show.  This is all fine, since the general public knows there are also serious martial forms of kung fu out there as well "movie kung fu".  But if you compare this to Medieval and Renaissance fighting skills, there is whole profession of “operatic” artists, but we are still working on the martial version!  Make sense?  People don't know the difference between real and theatrical sword European fighting because most have yet to see sword combat practiced or presented in a historically accurate and martial manner.

So you recognize clear differences between the craft of stage combat and the pursuit of historical fencing?

Entirely. Whereas the martial artist fencer is trying to reconstruct and replicate elements for effectiveness, the fight choreographer in contrast, as a form of actor and physical performer, has an artistic and creative task challenging them –and in my opinion, it’s for this very reason, this difference in process and goals, that has prevented stage combat from leading in the field of historical fencing research.

Writing in the recent Martial Arts of the World Encyclopedia, Noah Tuleja rightly points out how in Shakespeare’s time, for example, professional actors were also trained swordsmen and likely the very fights in his plays were devised by men drawing on their own actual real life experiences and skills.  Today though, we generally have stunt fighters who fight arrangers who have notoriously skip over the martial side of things and either just made things up or borrowed from sport fencing. 

Actors generally avoid criticizing each other’s work, do you that’s true in the stage combat community?

I have no idea. But they certainly get angry when I do.  I don't criticize the profession itself, just   the content of their work.  I think it should be admitted that as consumers, as viewers, we’re free to form any judgment or opinion of what we seen in movies and TV –do we like it or not, do we think it real or unreal, funny or not funny? Etcetera.  But as martial artists, as historical fencers, we can ask is this something you could really do with that kind of sword or is that something which would really happen in sword combat?  And if portrayals contradict what our experience or expertise tells us, we have the right to express our viewpoint to our own community and to the public at large.  If someone feels our freedom of speech endangers their livelihood as an entertainer or consultant…well, what can you do?

So what things really bother you about choreographed fights, other than the obvious edge on edge parrying?

Hmmm...I suppose other than the constant edge banging, I’d have to say the cliché of constantly closing up against each other without instantly employing one of a dozen different highly effective counters. I imagine it’s a hold over from theatrical stage plays where actors had to give dialogue in that position.  But I have never seen two fighters lock weapons without instantly making another move against one another.   I would add the same for the ludicrous flips you see.  You know, where a guy suddenly does a forward or back flip to avoid his opponent who just stands there and gives him all the time in the world to squat down and flip over and reclaim his balance instead do just stabbing or chopping him the whole time. 

Any other beefs?

One of the worst things I abhor is the excessive “spinning” you see nearly all the time in sword fights. You know, the whole turning their back thing in the middle of the fight kind of move. It just totally perplexes me to exasperation. All the time you see swordplay where one guy will suddenly spin around as if his opponent would be surprised by this and react like, ‘Duh, where’d he go? Oh no! He spun!’.  In over two decades of sparring and free-play with all manner of swords and weapons, I have yet to ever have anyone effectively turn their back on me in a fight so that they managed to hit me.   Nor have I ever used such a thing myself –with the exception of fighting against pole arms with a shorter weapon.  You never take your eyes off your opponent like that so you blind yourself to them, let alone withdraw your weapon so it now has to travel all the way around in a large arc behind you in order to then hit.  Doing so certainly doesn't make it quicker and certainly doesn't open up a different line of either attack or defense.  It’s inefficient and unnecessary and besides, it just exposes you to getting hit in the back while you’re busy turning.  But, as if it’s somehow going to be particularly effective they do this all the time in staged fights without any repercussions. 

But choreographed fights can be set up to make any technique look like it would work?

Bottom line, as a martial artist, not a choreographer or fight director, I could care less about what works in arranged displays. I am only concerned about what worked back then and how we can learn it today.  There’s always a chance under appropriate circumstances anything will work, but to me all this spinning around and other nonsense only underscores an ignorance of the nature of armed combat by performers and directors.  Of course, anyone can be a good martial artist outside of their stage combat activities. But what I keep asking is of the fight arrangers and performers is, if they truly know something about real fighting why do we NEVER see any of it reflected in their work!?   For that matter, take a survey of the ten or so stage combat books and videos available from leaders in the field and it reveals a plethora of misconceptions and nonsense about Medieval and Renaissance fencing skills and the nature of bladed combat.  So it’s no wonder so much of stage combat in my opinion makes a mockery of the true sophistication of historical European swordplay. 

You object professionally to a lot of it on technical grounds, but you still enjoy seeing swordplay in movies, don't you?

Watching it can be fun (which is the whole purpose), you can admire the coordination and timing and the arrangement of movement, but speaking as a martial artist looking at it technically (which is something we can't help but do), when it comes to almost all the fighting and weapon handling, it’s ludicrously bad. Some of it is soooo bad it turns my stomach. When I see what I consider bad fighting in movies or TV or live-action shows, it’s not the performance or acting that I am critical of. I’m noticing whether the technique and the movements they set up follow one another naturally or practically or soundly.  Usually, the supposed action and reaction of the combatants defies physics and common sense in favor of some nonsensical imaginary incarnation that just would never happen in a combat.  The pervasive influence of this sort of thing on students of historical fencing will be a continual problem until stage combat improves. 

Why do you suppose stage-combat swordplay and is so frequently mediocre as you say?

I think part of the problem is the very theories of weapon handling and swordplay among fight arrangers and performers is flawed.  Looking at their books, their videos, their class syllabi, as well as the end result product they produce, it’s clear to me they don’t understand much of the nature of real historical fencing.   They are still mired in misconceptions of how real swords function and what people could really do with them in combat. I am not addressing anyone in the profession personally. They are well meaning good people doing a job. When it comes to swordplay there are probably an infinite number of creative ways of doing something wrong, but there’s only a few ways of doing it right.  As an instructor and researcher, my interest is only in the methods of how historical weapons were used correctly. 

What about ARMA’s InTheater effort?

We did have for a time in early 2002 a new program, headed by Keith Ducklin, who mentored under John Waller, a man known for his weapon skills.  But he’s a martial artist first and incorporate historical fencing studies as part of the program and it includes some degree of sparring.  The program was conceived as a starting point for an alternative means of professional stage-combat certification, one founded exclusively on material from the historical source manuals and an understanding of what real weapons could do.  It’s somewhat revolutionary. We envisioned it would be slow to get going at first, but unfortuantely Keith was never able to make teh transition to the USA as we had expected, and without his presence here a overseer to qualify intereste dparties, there was just no way to get it off the ground with regualr events.  So we decided to let it all pass.   Mayeb it will be revised in some form again someday.  The concept is valid an very much needed I think.

Any advice then for stage-combat students or teachers who want to use more realistic historical techniques?

As I see it, the problem for understanding real techniques is that stage-fighting, as an “martially inspired artform”, lacks the necessary energy associated with using real techniques. As a martial art, you have to understand striking with proper power, focus, follow-through, etc., and you just don't need that or get that from pre-arranged or choreographed sequences.  Think about it, how do you learn to perform historical techniques in weapon handling when you only practice doing it out of range, off target, and at false speed?  For that matter, how do you learn to portray the true elements associated with personal combat without any intense free-play? 

Is there any value to be found in stage combat for historical fencing students?

I think stage combat has a tremendous amount to learn from historical fencing, but not that Medieval and Renaissance fencing has anything much to learn from stage combat.   To use an analogy, you would not see boxers studying the “Rocky” films to learn their craft, but the makers of boxing movies certainly have to go study real boxers. 

I will add that there is a new generation of stage combat students and leaders, who are starting out with a martial attitude and real interest in the authentic techniques that would have been employed in real fighting.  They want to portray how these weapons were really used and not do the same old cliché's using the same tired theories.  But these new performers are few and their voices have not been heard nor their impact felt yet. 

The obvious question is, what movie or TV sword fights have you liked or thought were well done?

[Sigh…] That's much harder to answer than it is to ask.  There’s movies I’ve enjoyed and fight scenes I’ve liked regardless of their lack of realism or historical accuracy, such as the ‘73 Musketeers, Conan, Princess Bride, Excalibur, Rob Roy, Lord of the Rings. And there are some fight scenes I thought were really well done like in Rashoman, Braveheart, and the Sharp series, but even in the best of them, where the actor is moving well or the energy and timing of the fight flows, there might suddenly be a really dorky cliché move or totally suicidal technique thrown in that makes me roll my eyes in embarrassment. 

Any last remarks on this topic?

Come to think of it, let me make a prediction.  I think for the future of stage combat, a knowledge of CGI (computer generated imagery) and special effects will become more important than any realistic personal skill in historical weapon handling. When you look at the fight scenes in movies like Blade, The Mummy, and Gladiator, you can see things can be done with special effects that have little to do with choreographing combats between live actors or trained stunt fighters.  I think the impact of this technology has yet to be really touched on and in coming years we’ll see far more fight scenes involving CGI and much less “Xena” style operatic stunts.   Imagine for example, a fight scene where the weapons themselves are computer images and they can strike into or through targets –whether the targets are live actors or imaginary images.  That could either be very realistic or even more fantastical.  In a sense, CGI will allow fight arrangers to have full reign in expressing their creative impulses as never before…but performing arranged moves with another person will likely be less important. When you think about it, that's kind of ironic given the renaissance that is now underway in our understanding of historical swordplay. 

To comment on this or any other portion of the
conversation interview series send an email to theARMA@comcast.net