How accurate is movie swordfighting?

Cafe Society
1

I don’t know anything about fencing or swordfighting, but I’m sure somebody on the SDMB was on the college fencing team or is one of those Medieval Faire types and could respond to this. Specifically I wonder about:

The Adventures of Robin Hood: Errol Flynn is fast as lightning, but he has this habit of twirling his sword over his head when he’s fighting off a bunch of guys at once. Whatever works, I guess, but does this look weird to you?

Star Wars: Should Obi-wan spin around in his big fight with Darth Vader? Is it okay to even momentarily have your back to your enemy?

The Princess Bride: Okay, they were certainly camping it up here, but in the big swordfight scene between Inigo and the Man in Black, they’re both supposed to be the best of the best swordfighters, and Inigo is tremendously impressed by the DPR’s skill. They also refer to different maneuvers by name – is this legit?

Any incarnation of The Three Musketeers: Thwack! Thwack! ching! They always seem slow and showy to me – lots of arm movements. You’re trying to kill somebody! Get on with it!

Granted, it’s show biz, and you’ve got actors who’ve been learning to do this for about three weeks trying to look as if they’ve been actually doing it for years. Any screen sword performances you especially admire?

2

I’d always heard that Basil Rathbone was a skilled swordsman, which this site confirms (assuming that a site titled basilrathbone.net can be trusted).Rathbone was very skilled at fencing, having taken lessons since the age of eighteen. Power was extensively doubled in the duel {in “The Mark of Zorro” - added} by Albert Cavens, the son of choreographer Fred Cavens. Cavens also choreographed the duels between Rathbone and Errol Flynn in “Captain Blood” and “The Adventures of Robin Hood.”

3

Stage combat and self-defense with a bladed weapon are entirely different. The techniques, goals, and methods are entirely divergent. See the FAQ located here for more information. It briefly addresses this question and explains what classical and historical fencing are in some detail.

If you are interested in films with quality swordplay, they are few and far between. Film actors as late as the 1930s actually received substantial fencing training for these roles. At this time, the gulf between stage combat and fencing was considerably smaller. As tastes and theatrical training changed, the gulf grew much wider.

For perhaps the finest fencing scene in any film I know if, see the 1936 production of Romeo and Juliet. The street fight between Tybalt (Basil Rathbone) and Mercutio (John Barrymore) is an outstanding example of French rapier. It is crisp, the technique is real, and the scene is well executed. It is, of course, very brief.

Also, see The Court Jester, with Danny Kaye. His cane technique is Italian sabre. Danny Kaye’s fencing teacher, incidentally, was my fencing master’s master. He, and Basil Rathbone, were both excellent fencers, not merely Hollywood hacks.

Regarding the movies you mentioned:

Just about anything with Errol Flynn is ghastly.

There are reams of material available for SW choreography. It is inspired by several sources, including tennis of all things, and is not meant to be an approximation of fencing in any way whatsoever.

The Princess Bride is brilliantly choreographed and absolutely perfect for its genre. It is also not fencing. The “moves” that they describe are not exactly real, however, the sources are. All of the authors and texts that they mention are very real and are the sources for period fencing. A new translation of Capo Ferro, one of the texts used in the fighting dialogue, is now available. It’s damn good: I won’t link it here since I worked on it. :slight_smile:

4

God knows I’m not an expert on anything, but from my limited experience (I’ve done a little fencing and martial arts), I’m convinced that there are at least three forms of fighting in any field – “Arena” fighting (for the salle and the dojon), “street” fighting (for real life), and “Hollywood” fighting (looks impressive, but is likely to get you killed).
And one thing that was strongly impressed on me was to never turn your back on an opponent. If you’re a lot more experienced than I, as a lowly student, was, then you probably knew when you could get away with it, and it would probably require that you spin around real quick. But it’s a really stupid idea, in general.

5

Maeglin did a greta job outlining the main difference between medieval and renaissance martial arts and modern stage combat choreography.

Two comepletely different goals that are simply not compatible with one another.

In one the purpose is to kill your opponent with sharp, steel intruments as quickly and as efficiently as possible, in the other the purpose is to tell a story, and do so in a flashy way that is also as safe as possible for the actors who likely have no martial experience whatsoever, and almost certainly are not using sharp steel weapons.

The basic tenent is that the newer the style and the weapons, the more realistic the combat will be on the screen. Although even this is not always true sometimes because the choreography sucks, sometimes the movie is meant to be extremely flashy and fantastical (crouching tiger hidden dragon for example), or one or more of the limitations of stage choreography as I listed above will force some changes.

So modern sport fencing in film is likely to be quite accurate, as will Kendo representations. Classical combat styles (such as small sword) will be more hit and miss, but in a good production will likely be well done and atleast somewhat accurate. Renaissance cut and thrust sword and rapier are much less likely to be accurately represented. You typically end up with fighters slashign wildly at each other ineffectually with rapiers (foigning weapons), and you also typically see a lot of modern sport fencing used, something that just doesn’t belong. And then you get to medieval forms of combat and here I’ve seen NO movie that gets it even a tiny little bit right. From LOTR, to Excalibur, you name it, it ain’t historicallya ccurate in the least. You won’t see accurate medieval fighting techniques even in most renaissance and medieval fairs, or done by most historicla re enactors. Your best bet to see an accurate representation of medieval (and renaissance) combat would be to drop by a local school or group devoted toserious historical combat systems.

6

I think the distinction in sallet or dojo fighting to ‘street’ or real fighting is really more of a product of some more modern martial arts or likely, martial sports. This is simply nto true of effective techniques taught in martial arts used as combative forms (either in a modern applicaiton, or in it’s past).

And, yes, turning your back on your opponent is almost certain death. No amount of twirling around will help you in reality.

7

Twirling your weapon, with very few exceptions, is also a terribly bad idea in practice. Sweaty, adrenalized fingers and a meter-plus of pointy steel? Brilliant.

Also note that you generally don’t want to be blocking a heavy chunk of metal with the finely honed edge of your sword. It’ll dull and nick, if not actually break.

Not only is spinning around bad, so is jumping into the air, with or without fancy flips. Very few “real” martial arts advocate trying to kick at your opponent any higher than the waist. Balance and center of gravity, you see.

If someone is disarmed in real life, it probably refers to fingers or wrists being hacked off, not that their blade has been deftly knocked out of their hand.

Swords are heavy. Prolonged fighting is very unusual, for that reason. Wonded people scream and flop about. They don’t make gritty, determined speeches.

These are just some general points (ha!) to keep in mind when you watch movie fighting. If they’re doing these things, it’s not real. “But Justin!”, you say. “They all do these things!”

Yes, grasshopper. They all do.

8

Another common occurance in movies is the push bind dialogue.

When the actors crash swords and begin to push the swords together while some witty reparte is exchanged.

This too does not happen in real life. The bind, the moment in which blades make contact, lasts all of a tiny moment in which the swordsmen will employ quick decisive techniques which will usually end with one guy being run through.

And a caveat to JSexton’s comment:

I think I know what he meant to say, but just because I uaully get a lot of outlandish comments in this area:

Swords were not as heavy as some hollywood movies would have you believe.

Your average two-handed longsword ranging in length from roughly 40 to 50 inches weighed in at about 2.5 to 3.5 pounds.

Even the “true” greatswords of the renaissance (Dopple-handers) did not weigh more than 7 pounds (atleast not those intended for non ceremonial use).

So no 100 lb swords, sorry :wink:

9

Some nitpicks.

A molinello is a critical element in Italian sabre technique. I suppose it could be considered “twirling.” Thus it is, in fact, frequently a good idea in practice. It is also an occasionally useful technique in foil, rapier, and sidesword.

Only if you are doing it wrong. A properly executed parry (rather than a “block”) redirects the attacking weapon rather than opposing it. The same principles of redirection are employed in “soft” martial arts. Much of the “blocking” techniques in stage combat would not be practical actual defense. This does not preclude parrying, which fencers indulge in quite frequently.

What does “real life” mean in this context? Regardless, I disagree. “Deft knocking” and even more commonly offhand checking are used very often in practice. Disarming by removing the offending hand is a useful technique in cutting or cut & thrust weapons, but the technique changed drastically from the 15th-16th centuries.

No, swords are not heavy, and no, prolonged fighting is not necessarily unusual. Furthermore, two inches of penetration in the upper torso delivered by a thrusting weapon does not typically yield screaming and flopping about. It yields a moment of shock and surprise, and a quick death from sepsis or asphyxiation shortly thereafter. It is very hard to scream flop about when you are suffocating on your own vital fluid or when your are suffering massive internal organ failure.

You were saying something about a grasshopper?

10

You are absolutely right in theory. But the attacker has to execute the technique properly and the defender has to fail. Lots of attacks on the blade, and even attacks in general, get botched somewhere during the action and both fencers end up either occasionally corps-a-corps or more commonly getting the hell out of there before unplanned death occurs. :slight_smile:

11

Well yes, that was an abstraction. And you’re right, beign run through is one of the myriad posibilities from entering a graple, to being sliced or cut, etc. My main point was that the bind is nothing as depicted in movies.

One quesiton for you though Maeglin, what exactly do you mean by ‘deft knocking’. Never heard the term before.

Oh and the molinello is too seen in medieval longsword! :slight_smile:

12

Hey Kinthalis,

Damn, man, I know you’re in Jersey, you should come out and play with us. :slight_smile:

As for “deft knocking,” I was just using [j]JSexton’s** unfelicitous phrase. Definitely not a technical term.

Is the molinello in longsword? I am much more of a later period fencer, but I have a little experience in longsword. Is it in German or Italian? Both perhaps?

13

I have seen it refered to in the Italian school, perhaps even the precursor technique later adopted to the weapons you use?

Where exactlly are you guys located? Looks some of my group got caught in the all the flooding, so I might be able to do soemthign else within the next couple of weeks.

14

Returning to the movies . . .

One film I remember fondly for its swordplay is Richard Lester’s 1973 version of The Three Musketeers. I can’t say whether it was authentic (I’ve only had the amount of training necessary to participate in stage duels), but what I found believable was the attitude. It wasn’t “I’m going to dazzle you with my fighting skill till you bow down before me (all the while spouting witty repartee);” rather, it was “I’m going to do whatever it takes to kill you in the shortest time possible (or at least guarantee that I leave here with my major body parts still connected and functioning).” So a punch in the nose or a knee in the groin was as much a part of the encounter as a gracefully-executed moulinet.

(And I really liked the rolling move that d’Artagnan’s father taught him at the end of the opening credits. I rather imagine that IRL it would be an invitation to a beheading—still, it was a cool move.)

15

One point I’ll make in defense of Star Wars: Lightsabres are not swords. The blades are essentially weightless, the whole thing is “cutting edge” all around, they don’t chip or dull, they’re only blockable (for practical purposes) by other lightsabre blades, nearly any wound will dismember or kill, and the people wielding them have precognitive reflexes. One should therefore not expect the same styles to be applicable to lightsabres as to any sort of Earthly sword.

Now, whether the lightsabre styles we do see are something which would actually be appropriate for such a weapon, I don’t know. But they definitely shouldn’t completely be sword styles.

16

I’ve always thought that about Jean Claude Van Damme style kickboxing: if you’ve ever watched a real muay thai bout, it’s mostly knees and elbows that do the damage. Anyone executes a twirlling leap kick on me, I’m gonna step aside and then boot him in the kidneys when he lands.

17

I recall watching the History Channel series Combat, which attempted to reproduce actual combat techniques with a variety of weapons from many eras. In the episode concerning Three Musketeers-style dueling, the host demonstrated the “Hollywood swordfight”, noting that the moves were totally artificial and scripted, but that it looked good and you could extend it indefinitely. He then demonstrated actual dueling technique, which, as others have noted, was about winning as quickly and as certainly as possible. Quite a difference.

18

In the old studio system, the vast majority of the male and a number of the female stars were trained in a couple different forms of fencing. (this was in addition to elocution lessons, and a variety of dance lessons among other things) I once interviewed Joel McRae (mostly known for his westerns) and he said that he found that it was excellent conditioning.

So I think it is safe to say that in the old fencing films there was expertise usually on both sides. Rathbone was a better fencer than Flynn, but Flynn knew what he was doing.

Now speaking from experience as a competition fencer, (just before it went electronic) I will say that most of the florishes that both sides use in film are, for the most part, not practical. Fencing is a great deal like chess, while you might faint to the outside or even build an attack to the outside the focus is always to the heart of the opponet (or at least in that general vicinity - especially since you can’t castle in fencing). In films you see the point of the blade go all over the place, but you will seldom (if ever) see that in competition.

In that way it is much like boxing, if you pull back for a haymaker in boxing, you will get nailed about five times. Yet watch boxing films you will see the hero pulling back for those roundhouse rights often, but it just isn’t so in reality. It’s more for show than practicality.

19

Hey experts - any thoughts on the Tim Roth/Liam Neeson swordfight at the end of Rob Roy? I got the impression that it was well done.

20

Much, albeit perhaps not most, of the swordfights in Braveheart were reasonably reaslistic. A bunch of people ran at each other with pointy things and lot of them died or were horribly wounded real quick.