Fencing Movies - Problems with Getting it Right

Greetings, Movies with fencing in them are there for the entertainment of the people who view them. All fencers enjoy a good fencing movie. All remember the fencing scene at the top of the cliff in "The Princess Bride". The problem is that quite frequently experienced fencers will look at these movies and see holes in the technique and the actions of the combatants. This blog is a brief investigation into the problems with getting such things right, and also continuing to make them saleable for the general public, as unfortunately the educated fencing community seems to be rather small for budgeting an entire movie around. Various aspects will be addressed and considered. The first problem that is encountered in the making of a fencing movie is the approach. It is a question of choreography versus combat. The purpose of the combat in a movie is to enhance the scene and develop dramatic elements between the combatants involved in the action. The purpose of an encounter between two fencers is a test of skill which is the focus of the encounter, considerations of their relationship to one another is usually not considered. Thus the big difference here is that one set of action is an attempt to tell a story while the other is a martial engagement between two individuals for the purpose of the encounter, rather than for developing a storyline. This particular situation leads to other elements of great importance to this particular topic. Fencers are trained to strike their opponents with their weapons. Admittedly there is a level of control behind this striking, but the intention is to strike the opponent before he strikes you. For the actor involved in a dramatic situation, the last thing they want to do is to actually strike their opponent. Stringent safety precautions are laid into the training in order that the actors do not strike one another. Anytime that one actor happens to hit the other is usually the result of a lapse in judgement or a break from a set routine. This is a fundamental difference that must be taken into account. Intent is important and the intent of an action more so. Fencers use tactical considerations for the actions that they will use against their opponent. They will use the most efficient method of striking their opponent while at the same time ensuring that they are not struck. This differs greatly from the actor. The actor has a set of choreographed actions which were developed by the fight director of the movie for the actor to perform in order to portray the action required by the director. There are no real tactical considerations here in the hands of the actor at all. The actions are controlled not by the person holding the weapon but by someone else, thus the actor is not free to change an action in order to be more efficient or in order to avoid an action which will result in defeat. Their fate, or the fate of their character has already been determined by the director and writer. This is obviously not the case for the fencer, who is in control of their own actions and responses to their opponent's actions. Both actors and fencers are involved in training in order that they are prepared for the encounter with their opponent, but the training is different for the two and also the length is also different. While a fencer will spend months and years perfecting their technique in order to improve themselves, the actor has a much shorter period of time. On average the actor has about six weeks in order to learn all that they need to in order to perform the actions that are set by the fight director and the director of the movie. This truncates the training of the individual quite markedly. This is not to say that there are not actors who are also fencers, this is simply not the case as Basil Rathbone clearly proves. The thing is that the actions learn by the actor are set moves which are performed for the movie. While there is a basic introduction to what the actor is supposed to be doing the main focus is on those actions as determined by the director and the fight director. It is only this set of moves which is the focus for the actor. If the fencer limits themselves to a predetermined set of actions this would limit them a great deal and would not make a very effective fencer. The image presented in movies is quite different from the actual nature of fencing. The image depicted by the movie is dependent on many factors and what sort of story the director wants to portray in the movie. This is of great importance. "By the Sword" depicts some elements of sport fencing in it. Some of the training is addressed, but the main focus in this is to depict the actions of the fencers as having speed and elegance once trained properly. This is reflected by their actions before and after training has been done. Still, though the actions are limited by what was required for the movie. Swashbuckling movie such as "Pirates of the Caribbean" and "The Three Musketeers" want to portray something different and thus the actions are different. The most important thing in this respect is that movies tend to focus on the flash and the bash. The sound of steel on steel and the large flowing actions of the characters in the movie. The use of the weapon is dependent on the character being depicted. Certain actions will be used by some characters and not by others, this enables some character development through physical actions. This is all quite different from actual fencing where economy of action is the focus and being the most effective against the opponents being the prime objective.

....

The rest of this article can be found in Un-Blogged: A Fencer's Ramblings by Henry Walker, which is available in paperback from:

Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Blogged-Ramblings-Henry-Leigh-Walker/dp/098764470X
Booktopia: https://www.booktopia.com.au/un-blogged-henry-leigh-walker/book/9780987644701.html
Among other places...

It is also available in electronic format (pdf) from: https://buy.stripe.com/fZecP419c7CB9VKeUV

... or direct from the author.