Can I have your opinions?

[stormbind]

Gosh, I hate my goofy questions! Everyone else has national or world politics issues, and I just think about myself

I have studied some historic combat techniques, as recorded by masters of their respective time periods (sp. Elizabethan & Victorian).

When watching choreographed works, in almost every single case (be it workshop, television, or stage), I whine about the complete inaccuracy and failure to respect history.

Ofcourse, I understand that the audience must be able to see what is happening, and that it must be safe... but I still maintained that what is widely portrayed is completely wrong.

Just read this...

... if a fight is too realistic in its choreography or portrayal, the audience can actually begin to fear for the safety of the actor rather than the character. This destroys the illusion as easily as poorly executed fights.

I would say that the above is utter nonsense! Since when do people actually stop to think about the actor? They would have me forget the actual methods of combat (recorded C15th ~ C19th) and copy the errors entrenched over the last decades (C20th).

In every piece of choreography I have seen, I feel the actor wouldn't last 2 seconds had it been real! This thought distracts and ruins whatever I am watching... surely it would be better if they at least held the weapons as originally intended?

But, perhaps I am being stubborn; this does seem to come naturally. So I would like the perspective of someone who is completely neutral (i.e. not been taught choreography, and not been taught the actual history).

Thanks.

 

[Hitro]

What exactly are you talking about?

Any kind of choreography in a fight seems rather unrealistic to me but maybe I didn't even get what you are aiming for.

 

[HighlandWarrior]

i agree the above is crap. who really cares if the actor gets hurt? He could lose his head for all i care, as long as it is entertaining

 

[stormbind]

I thought it was obvious what I was talking about. Choreography, what else could I be talking about?

I am aiming to portray realism. For example, to show a Rapier or Sabre used as they would have been used in their respective time periods... and it seems, this is not allowed, and that, instead, we must be brainwashed into thinking swords were clumbsy and flawed.

 

[stormbind]

i agree the above is crap. who really cares if the actor gets hurt? He could lose his head for all i care, as long as it is entertaining

Nobody gets hurt; it is rehursed very slowly and carefully. First by a choreographer, and when he has isolated risks, then by the actor.

But it's like... when they show Rapiers, they hold them wrong, they stand wrong.. they move incorrectly, don't cover themselves, and they kill incorrectly... it's just all wrong!

Infact, the same text says...

...to force a sword to do a move its design did not predicate is to create a dangerous situation. I prefer to use authentic technique whenever possible simply because it’s safer.

And yet most do not! Same text again...

For the character of Duncan McCleod, I’ve used techniques from Iaido, Kenjutsu, Hapo-no-Kamae, Happo-Giri, Hwa-Rang-Do, Arnis and Kali Escrima, Penkat Silat, and Western foot and cavalry sabre technique from the 18th and 19th century, plus a few moves that I invented myself through extrapolation.

I don't know the eastern techniques listed, but he just contracticted what he said before about using the weapon as intended. And then he does another 180...

Costume designers do their research; why should fight directors be immune to historical style?

But, in the bigger picture, the guy who wrote the above is an exception to the rule. I would say that the majority pay far less attention to history.

 

[Syterion]

Jackie Chan, I believe has broken his nose 3 times, an elbow, his chin, cheekbone, and jaw along with a plug in his skull. I think there's more but this is all I am sure of.

 

[SeleucusNicator]

Somehow, I don't think hiring Jackie Chan to do Elizabethan battle recreations would please stormbind in his quest for accuracy.

Though I absolutely would watch that.

 

[stormbind]

So it's gymnastics that is most appreciated? Darn...

 

[Mojotronica]

People shelled out money to see "The Crow," and Brandon Lee was killed filming it.

The problem with realistic swordplay is that it is not very cinematic. It was over too quickly and it was brutal, and doesn't come off as "fun" the way a nice Errol Flynn sword-fight does.

 

[stormbind]

True, if the cuts/thrusts were succesful it would be over very quickly... but in choreography, you know which cut/thrust will be tried, and can parry or dodge endlessly.

 

[Mojotronica]

In order for it to be realistic, the skirmishes would go fast. Maybe something like this:



See? Not very heroic. And it leaves too much time for crap dialogue and character development.

 

[stormbind]

Yes, I know that... but this is because real combat is fast... targetting the body... and intentionally avoiding a parry such (i.e. fained attacked). They are also on impluse.

Choreographed works are slower... not targetting the body... and trying to avoid being parried... and are practiced in advance.

That doesn't mean they need to ignore history.

P.S. There's a consistency flaw with your image but I get the point

 

[CenturionV]

I have never really worried about historical accuracy or realims in filmed martial arts. Does one watch pro-wrestling because he expects to see realistic combat action? Surely not, heck my martial arts master (a 35+ year martial arts trainer, bodyguard, Canine trainer, and illegal knife/NHB combat fighter) watches pro-wrestling, he knows its just entertainment.

If I want realism and historical accuracy, I'll go to my local school and spar or train. Unless your deliberately trying for a historical realism I would not care to much if its not there in your average action movie.

 

[Lopex]

I share your annoyance and I am not schooled in choreagraphy or history.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

That's not the only publicly accepted inacuracy. Just watch any sci-fi movie. Did you notice the great starship starting it's engines with a roaring SOUND?

 

[Plotinus]

Are we talking about films? Or plays? Or some kind of ballet? "Choreography" means dancing.

Personally I find any kind of plays hard to watch because I cannot force my mind past the fact that they are actors and might forget their words at any point, or something else might go wrong. I much prefer films because I know that can't happen. Therefore I would not want to watch a "realistic" fight on a stage because of the chance that something might go hideously wrong. But I wouldn't mind on a film because that couldn't happen - at least in the final cut...

 

[IglooDame]

I don't think it is because of danger, Stormbind, I think it is out of laziness.

There are certain movies I can't watch (generally Navy-related) because they're doing it wrong. In one movie the entire plot revolves around getting half a radio message. It is impossible with today's equipment to get half a message. It wouldn't surprise me if in the instance of swordplay, they dumb it down because the actors can't learn the real ways well enough.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

One thing Ive noticed about sword fight scenes in movies is that they all appear to be choreagraphed by the same person. Theres no individual style displayed. Also it annoys me that in every sword fight, its now mandatory that the fighters periodically, while performing their various manuevers,turn around and present their backs to their opponents for what seems like a full second. I dont know alot about martial arts or swordfighting, but it seems implausible that in a life and death struggle with an opponent armed with a sword, that turning your back on them is a wise thing to do.

 

[Vanadorn]

It's supposed to be fake. For the most part, movies and screenplay are designed for entertainment purposes only, it's a vehicle to entertain and delight the masses; not to present the actuallities and brutalness of the time periods and modes of combat suggested by those times.

99% of people don't care how sword fighting was actually accomplished, the same % that don't care how their car starts, how their home get's heated, how their computer gets built, where their wonder bread came from, or what went into establishing the genreal run of their lives that they experience every day. All the masses care about is that the items mentioned WORK. They go to the movie to be amused, that's all.

It's the other 1% (or less) who, after a long period of enjoying themselves, study more of what it is they watched on screen. They look deeper and further than the pretty colors and circus like performances. Those people then take a delight in history and delve deeper into its richness and fullness - such as yourself.

Don't be mad at the movies or choreographers, just know that they are doing this for a business, and their business is to keep the money paying movie goers happy.

My 2 cents

 

[Bozo Erectus]

I shouldnt say anything in this thread because I just realised I get all my swordfighting opinions straight from Duncan Idaho.