I recommend reading a relatively old but interesting article about whether martial arts are detrimental to modern action films.
In the stylish action drama Hannah: The Ultimate Weapon, the eponymous heroine (Saoirse Ronan) was raised in isolation by her father, teaching her martial arts and hand-to-hand combat, after which, at the age of 16, she finally entered the real world. ready to “heap” on everyone and everything. Before this, she had never met anyone except her father (Eric Bana), had never been anywhere except the wintry expanses of Northern Finland, had never heard of pop culture or seen a movie... and in this she was lucky, because Hanna , sneaking into the cinema to look at the “fresh” action movie, she would be shocked: these days in films everyone fights like her. And these are just the “flowers”.
Actors often brag about how long they had to study Krav Maga, karate or capoeira for roles, but judging by modern action films, this skill set is common: an innate knowledge of martial arts is inherent in everyone, be it the main character, the villain or just a sidekick ( Luckily, heroes always have to fight villains who somehow have the same style of martial arts as themselves). Too often it seems that films will "get" to the point where simple hand-to-hand combat with primitive overtones becomes something mandatory, because the screenwriter wrote "the battle breaks out" and the director passed it on to the second crew and fight coordinator so that, thereby filling three minutes.
It was fun to see how the trend began - with The Matrix Westernizing modern martial arts films and Charlie's Angels Drew Barrymore trading guns for roundhouse kicks - but it quickly became boring. In films like The Green Hornet, Salt, Sucker Punch and The Last Airbender, heroes deal with crowds of louts, receive an unexpected blow to the face, stomach or back, but it turns out that this is limited only by the appearance of a cute cut on the cheek (and whether there will be one remains to be seen). With little at stake, monotonous presentation, no blood or bruises, martial arts turns fight scenes into dance scenes, and while they may be fun to watch, they are, in most cases, unlikely to excite. viewers feel a sense of tension. The fights in Scott Pilgrim vs. the World were surprisingly inventive, but it was largely a musical, and even Joe Wright himself admitted that when he came up with the choreography for Hanna, he took the following approach: "Just treat it like dance, and everything will be fine." All this is good, but why doesn’t the fight scenes be treated as fight scenes?
Gone are the days when in battle they could use improvised firearms or hit for real. Now every movie hero is Jet Li, and every woman is Buffy the Vampire Slayer (even though Buffy's fighting skills were a byproduct of her mysterious strength as a slayer, the new generation of action heroines can destroy a 100-pound opponent, even if we are talking about a woman XNUMX-foot-tall with a physique , which is more suitable for a red carpet than a fight). "Hanna" handled the fight scenes better than most (Bana has an interesting, well-choreographed all-on-one fight, but it only stands out a little from the rest), but even the most stylish "unexpected" in this kind of battles doesn’t take away the feeling that we’ve seen it all before. It's time for directors to rethink the ideas of movie fights, and if they can't add anything new to them, or the spectacle of the hero throwing another hulk over his shoulder doesn't promise anything new for the film, then let it remain so. What can we say, after all, if in the real dance film “Black Swan” the moments with ballet and the purgative confrontation are stuffed with so many blows that you have not seen in any action film last year?
Author: Kyle Buchanan
Source: vulture.com
Translation: EvilDollaR
Original publication date articles: 4.05.2011/XNUMX/XNUMX
And there, as far as I understand, there was such an idea. The role of Alex Grady was specifically written for Roberts, and he took on a strong dramatic line, in fact all the acting moments. Well, yes, he personified the whole of America there. He is a very talented actor. And Ri and his brother took on the bulk of all the fight choreography, although the dramatic line between them was no less important, and maybe even central. Of course, there is a colossal difference between Eric and Philip. But let’s say that Criss Pen didn’t look particularly good compared to Rea, and he had a black belt in karate. But his character was not supposed to show anything as a fighter. He had a completely different task. Part of the comedic moments, show the transformation of your character, his journey and maturation as a person and a fighter in working with the team. The film is about people, and not just a series of beautiful fights.
And about Jean, I love him very much, I simply meant that he is not a great or titled master. And does he need to be one?))
And I don’t contradict, I simply complement.
Roberts as an actor will be better than Ree, BUT at the same time, the HUGE difference between Roberts and Rea during the fights was visible to the naked eye... and Eric's acting did not smooth out this difference much.
About Jean: this is absolutely not a controversial issue. He did karate - that's a fact, he competed - that's a fact.
Celpaso, not a single word of yours contradicts mine, thank you very much for your support.
Just note that everything is always taken out of context for some reason. “Has a weak connection with BI”: I didn’t mean Philip Rea, but Eric Roberts, that’s clear.
About Jean... mm... this is a very controversial issue, until now.
“All these films... were made very well for their time and became hits (this is if it’s dry and objective)” - of course, I wrote that by modern standards they were made far from ideally, some were even a little naive. But from the point of view of time and history, they are very valuable and hit. And for me personally they are very important.
I just meant that a bright actor who plays a fighter is often more important to me than a super professional whose character in the film is like a dried roach.
“Say, “Bloodsport”, um...the first part of “The Best of the Best”, the domestic “Fan” (even so), “Road House” with Patrick Swayze or the recently released “Warrior”. Most of these films, if you look at it dryly and Objectively, they are very poorly done, and the fights there leave much to be desired by modern standards. But most importantly, the fighters there are played by people who have very little to do with professional martial arts, or have nothing at all."
All these films... were made very well for their time and became hits (if this is dry and objective). The fact that Jean from Sports and Ri from the Strongest have no or very distant relation to BI is generally ridiculous. About others: Serebryakov... no matter how funny it sounds... an excellent actor who was simply superbly prepared for his role in The Fighter... the actors were well prepared and they have an amazing JJ Loco Pere, who knows how to stage fights and work with people without skills in BI, but about the Roadhouse....Patrick is an excellent actor and almost a professional. dancer, it follows that he has an excellent figure, a sense of distance, rhythm and perfectly remembers movements... hence the result, which is more than enough for a KINOboy
I just said that it’s not the fights themselves that are more difficult, but the approach to them. Not all of these films are so grotesque, but in most of them, of course, everything is quite naive. But this is a movie)
And regarding the Bourne Evolutions... "Why!?" Well, if you want believability, buy a ticket to MMA or walk at night in Lyubertsy.)))
I partly agree, partly don't. Staging a long fight scene without a single cut is difficult. But most of the battles look not even ostentatious, but grotesque. One makes a blow, the other puts a block - and in this position they freeze for a whole second. Yes, and they beat and block in some way as sophisticated and inconvenient as possible. Well, whatever you want, I haven’t been able to take it seriously for fifteen years.
And when two people fight for five minutes, or even fifteen, and remain cheerful in spirit and body. Even some kind of “The Bourne Identity” looks more believable - a lightning-fast exchange of blows, and one is down and the other is standing.
And when two people fight, one falls face down - the second picks him up and continues to beat him up. Why!? Especially when both have knives in their hands, as in the last Death grip video (if you haven’t lost your mind). Even in the latest hit "The Raid".
I’m not even talking about the “one against all” situation. In my opinion, before Jackie Chan, no one could film this believably.
Oh, yes, I’m still silent about the cables ;)
Lindolion, watched both films and a few more. It turns out that I confused “Ultimate Weapon” with another, where he was plump and bearded, and shot more than fought... In these two, the editing is on par, but in the rest it is weak and shallow, and the fights themselves are not enough.
Urquidez is John Cusack's personal instructor, so he sometimes appeared in his films. (In "Murder at Grosse Pointe" he and Cusack even have a fight scene)
Vadim, regarding the fact that they didn’t know how to shoot like that before... It seems to me that there are two medals for the coin. On the one hand, you are right, progress has moved forward. But on the other hand, the choreographic part of the fight in many old films was much more complex than in modern ones. Rather, the approach to choreography itself was even more difficult. It was ballet. Art. When, during one long scene, filmed without editing, there is a complex interaction between two opponents, who are constantly in conjunction and “arguing” with each other with their attacking movements. Of course, in most old films this is repeated from one to another... but now there are a lot of films with similar choreography. I, too, have grown tired of old Chinese films, where the antagonist in the form of an evil guy with a glued-on white mustache and the protagonist fight in some vacant lot. But I still enjoy watching some films from the 80s and 90s.
Oh yeah! Back then they didn’t know how to stage fights on camera like that, there was no corresponding. instruments, various camera and staging techniques have not yet been discovered, etc. But this does not negate the fact that the coolness of some fighters is visible DESPITE poor camera work. Like the same Bolo Yong. About others, only experts can say - Don Wilson is cool.
Ps I looked at The Perfect Weapon - it turns out I saw it as a child. And yet, Jeff Speakman is a pretty cool guy, he was just unlucky to achieve the fame of Van Damme and co.
Pps I've watched all of Urquidez's films. There are catastrophically few of them. And I liked two of them the most: Leak into the sewer, where Benny plays a homeless man in a cameo role - what is he doing there))) getting shitty; and 1408 - I always believed that Urquidez could act in horror films without makeup))))))
Ravenside yes I am completely of the same opinion about Urquidez and Speakman. Because of this discussion, there was a desire to review Speakman’s films again. After all, tastes dull over time. I'll look at it after 15 years. I remember watching a film when I was a child, it was called on tape “Fight to Win”, I was drawn to it, where Cynthia Rothrock teaches a young show-off guy to fight so that he would screw Norton in the end, so 20 years later I watched it again and was shocked by what I saw,” HOW DID I WATCH THIS BEFORE? complete slag. And many Chinese films of old no longer evoke the same admiration, oddly enough.
Lindolion, it is not tastes that become dull over time, it is the needs of the audience that increase. Just imagine if we had watched Ong-Bak before the release of, for example, Drunken Master...
Well, we started trololo))) I also want to write something else) Jackie is not a competitor to Urquidez - that’s an understatement. It's like comparing the domestic auto industry and some top-class racing cars)) If there is a fight, Jackie will be objectively dead, this is clear to everyone, it's just like a joke)) But you must admit, it is not always correct to compare them, since they are completely different concepts of characters if used in film. Urquidez, by the way, in my opinion, looks brilliant as an on-screen fighter (energy, technique, facial expressions, appearance, image), not to mention his real achievements.
Speakman was also interesting to me because he has a strong, distinctive style, and he was able to adequately translate it into film. Clear, precise, effective.
Richard Norton is completely underrated as both a fighter and an actor. He could have become a star.
EvilDollaR, I agree, Urquidez, Trimble or Alexio have more dynamic and vibrant fights, not to mention the enchanting “Superfoot” Wallace. But the fact remains - Don is also a champion.)
I can't believe you haven't heard of him either =)
Yesterday I read the biography of Billy Blanks and was surprised by his achievements:
- Seven-time world champion in karate.
- Billy is the creator of tai-bo (a hybrid of aerobics, boxing and taekwondo, which is practiced to music).
- Was the captain of the US karate team.
- Has a seventh degree black belt in Taekwon
But most of all I was surprised that he played a small role in the film “AWOL” with JCVD. I watched this film a lot of times and didn’t notice Billy.
I watched it, of course, but it was a long time ago, about ten years ago, and I didn’t remember the film much. So, I wasn't very impressed.
Ehhh! I would like to look at Bolo Yong IN ALL HIS BEAUTY! And then in the films he demonstrates... Damn, the same Tiger Claws or Bloodsport - he is constantly forced to freeze in uncomfortable positions, all that. But when he moves... Well, I’m 147% sure that he would have tied Van Damme and Jalal Merkhi into a bow without even trying too hard.
I haven't seen all of his films, although I have seen most of them. And in none of them was he allowed to reveal himself one hundred percent.
Street Knight, Ultimate Weapon - I'll take a look, thanks for the tip.
Jeff Speakman
- Has a sixth degree black belt in Japanese Gojuro Karate and an eighth degree black belt in American Kenpo Karate.
- Founder and director of the American Kenpo Karate System, an international organization with more than 50 schools.
- Best films: Street Knight, Ultimate Weapon.
This leads (IMO) to why not many people know it.
Moralsit, for me the standard 90 - 99 - Richard Norton Cynthia Rothrock James Lew Bolo ENG Matthias Hughes Jalal Merhi Billy Blanks
I always didn’t understand why Don Wilson was so honored, and even DRAGON - ugly, rather weak, outwardly poor techniques are monotonous - films with him can only be watched at the expense of his opponents. The same Sasha Mitchell is not a kickboxer, not a martial artist, but kickboxing looks great with him
Who is Jeff Speakman?
Vadim Willson is the 11th world champion in kickboxing. He definitely knows how to fight, but I agree that the staged fights in his films are weak. There is no realism, unlike the fights of Seagal and Jeff Speakman. Maybe Willson should have preached "clean" kickboxing in all its glory in films.
Why download a video with the Dragon? Just watch them on YouTube. It was somehow sad, even though he won. The early fights of the same Urquidez and Trimble personally impressed me to a much greater extent.
Villains in the plot in most cases have lose. Even Ron, one precise kick would have been enough to send Jackie to KO if he suddenly forgot that filming was going on (I’m talking about Who I Am).
Ravenside, he said something interesting about Dragon Wilson. I’ve seen several of his films and I don’t understand why everyone is so fussy about him, the greatest fighter, the greatest fighter. I’m still psyching myself up to download a video of him in the ring, i.e. real fights. Maybe I'll get into it.
Likewise, based on movies, Benny Urquidez isn't much cooler than Jackie Chan. And according to the reviews of these two, Jackie the Reactive is no longer a competitor.
Something like that.
Conclusion: you don't need to watch everything. It is unlikely that anyone watches films from the 70s or 80s every day, in which people practicing martial arts and demonstrating amazing stunts and fights were filmed. It’s unlikely that anyone now begins their acquaintance with the genre with these films, and accordingly the rating systems leave much to be desired.
The message of the article is not clear :) It’s vague and written about nothing. The only thing I agree with is that BI are now in almost every film, almost every hero owns them. It's annoying. But in general, that’s what the movie is for, to see people who can train every 24 hours, and spend 24 hours a day on combat, and 24 hours on shooting, and 24 hours on tactics, etc... . :)
It seems to me that the whole point is: what kind of film is it and why, what kind of actor, how does he present himself and the fight and why is this fight actually needed, what is the idea in it, what image does it carry in itself for this idea and the idea of the film. Often an amateur carries more within himself than a seasoned master.
There are films that I consider to be some of my favorites, and which at a certain stage changed my understanding of fights in cinema. Let's say, "Bloody Sport", um... the first part of "The Best of the Best", the domestic "Fan" (even so), "Road House" with Patrick Swayze or the recently released "Warrior". Most of these films, if you look at them dryly and objectively, are very poorly made, and the fights there leave much to be desired by modern standards. But most importantly, the fighters there are played by people who have very little to do with professional martial arts, or have nothing at all. However, they managed to convey something from the fighter and create some kind of cinematic image that you “believe”, who has charisma that touches some kind of string. Their character is emotionally experienced by you; it contains a certain idea. And the fights there were not done for their own sake.
And in this context, Eric Roberts is much more important to me than, excuse me, Don "The Dragon" Wilson, who is the greatest fighter, but is absolutely incompetent in cinema.
That's why in one film I smell this ring, but in another I don't.
Very true about “take three minutes” and “cuts on faces.” Thanks for the article, EvilDollar!
Personally, I think that in action films where the hero tries to portray a battle, but in fact does not master the art of looking faded, for example, I don’t like how everything looks in the Matrix, or all the parts of the Transporter, but I’m generally silent about Charlie’s Angels. It feels false, the choreographer and cameraman can hide most of it, but the difference is still visible.