How We See Stage Combat

The supplemental reading for class today was interesting to go through, and I enjoyed all of the information put forward.  "Three Rules for Warriorship" was something I hadn't really thought about before.  It makes sense that simplicity would rule when it comes to being on stage with a live audience -- you don't want to confuse the audience, or truly scare them, but you of course want to carry out the fight scene dictated in your play.  You just want to get the basics across, and make sure that you know what you're doing, why you're doing it, and how it looks to the audience following the scene.  It makes sense to continue thinking about objectives and tactics even in a fight scene while acting -- there should always be purpose behind your movements.

"Ne'er the Twain..." was very interesting, especially given that I have no real background in any form of combat, and only limited experience in stage combat.  It would make a lot of sense to me that both real fighting and stage combat could compliment each other, but I could also see why there would be such a disparity of opinions if you are only trained in one and have only ever thought about your approach to the issue.  I especially liked when Tony Wolf explained that, "It is as illogical for a fighter to criticize a staged combat on technical grounds as it is for an actor to criticize a sparring match on aesthetic grounds."  That makes it so simple to understand why both would perhaps groan at the other, but also why neither has the place to really do so.  He does mention that he believes cross-training would probably not be as informative or helpful as it could be if you jump into one study before you're fully proficient in the other -- but I wonder if that would be the same if someone were to begin their learning in both studies at the same time, and attempt to move at a similar pace?  I'm not sure that this would be efficient, and I suppose that someone could very well get confused while doing this, but it was something I thought while reading...

"Observations on Film..." was awesome to read.  Jackie Chan is awesome, that's just the way it is.  I have to say, I had really only noticed those discrepancies in passing, and haven't watched quite enough action films with hand-to-hand combat to really notice all of these things.  But it was very cool the way that David Bordwell broke down each scene and picked apart the filming techniques used in each.  I will say that it would be way cooler to see everything that happens in a fight scene, rather than it being a confusing mess of blurred bodies.  I've been plenty confused watching some scenes in movies these days, even to the point of asking, "But how... how did he win that fight?  What?!"  That's always frustrating.  I don't want my hero/heroine to win by default, I want to know what happened!  Luck happens, and it's exciting when it does, but I'd still like to know how it happened, or how else s/he fought off the attacker.  I'm all for getting back to clearer cuts in fight scenes.  Jackie for the win.

I look forward, as always, to reading more and practicing more!  Have a safe weekend, Coloradoans~

- Chesney O

(PS - My Fight Clip Club #0 post will be coming either later today, or over the weekend -- I believe it will be a separate post from this one, rather than both being wrapped into one.)