Anyone else find this movie rather confusing?
I'm a fencer, so I enjoyed it for that (however inaccurately portrayed it may have been), but . . . hmmmm
CMSU Fencing Club - http://www.cmsufencing.com
Sam Stokes' Works Music Resource Page - http://www.geocities.com/samuelstokes
I'm still not 100% on the relevance of the flashbacks. I mean I know Suba killed Roberts' dad, and all, but I don't get exactly how it went about and such.
Kung fu movies are like porn. There's 1 on 1, then 2 on 1, then a group scene...
Suba was a young man and had an affair with his sword master's wife. They decided to fight over her in a fencing duel. As Roberts' character remembers it (he was a young boy back then), it was very romantic that they fought over his mother and he holds no grudge against Suba for killing his father. After all, it was a fair fight.
Suba however, remembers differently. His sword master's skill was too great for him and his master toyed with him. He lost the duel but it was not a fight to the death. However, Suba felt so humiliated and because he was young and hot tempered, he then killed his master after the fight. So it was, as he said himself, outright murder and it was justice that he went to prison.
Now I the only thing I cannot remember is why the hell did Roberts' character and Suba fight at the end. Not just because of their differing interpretations of past memories I think.
Think you can trust your cat? Think Again!
*Grins at your signature* Thank you very much for all that, Audie. I had no idea a woman was involved lol. Hopefully my logic of things will help o#you. For me, they fought at the end to see whose style really was better, Willard's style, assumably the same as his father's, or Suba's. I think Suba wants to find out as much as Willard.
Kung fu movies are like porn. There's 1 on 1, then 2 on 1, then a group scene...
They fought at the end because of the way that Villard was teaching his advanced students. He tells Trebor that he must win at all costs, which leads to Hobbs (I think) having a broken epee in his thigh. This is the attitude with which Suba killed Villard's father. He HAD to win, no matter how cowardly the method. What he does is re-enact the original duel. Just as he gives Villard the 'live' weapon, so Villard Snr. had given him a 'live' weapon (the same rapier I think) and as Suba does, Villard Snr. used only an untipped epee.
Villard's attitude to winning is summed up by the reason why he retired, "there was no one left to beat" and this also contributed to the final duel, he was being given a chance to prove how much better than his father he was, by beating the man that had beaten (killed) his father.
Nice, EXCELLENT interpretation, my friend, I'm impressed, thank you :-)
Kung fu movies are like porn. There's 1 on 1, then 2 on 1, then a group scene...
As a martial arts student and teacher this movie was like a Karate Kid but on an adult level. There are so many deep issues going on in this movie that I will not attempt to name them all. But by far this is my favorite movie as it has so many subtle lessons. Some of the most important. Suba's lessons to Clavelli. Just because your not the strongest most experienced person doesn't mean you can't win. Seek to find your enemy's weaknesses and use your strengths against them. Danny Gallagher the teacher that helps Suba talks about the importance of family over alocades and championships. And then there is Suba who learns that a man can change if he puts his mind to it and honesty first makes a good relationship(the girl he has a relationship with). But of course the main lesson that Suba teaches to Villard. And that is compassion. That is why at the end of the movie after losing, Villard approches Suba with the sword. He can kill Suba right there just like Suba killed his dad (in cold blood) but instead he breaks the rapier. That is also why he says to Suba "now this lesson is over". The lesson is the one he, Villard, was taught by Suba beating him and why they both salute each other with each other's salutes and call each other Maestro. It makes me cry every time I see it.
3 reasons for the final fight
1: Roberts character disregarded the tenants at the core of fencing.
2: Roberts character abused his students mentally, emotionally and in some respects physically.
3: Roberts character belittled his fathers memory and glorified his killer (Suba). and had therefor determined that there was no cost to high for victory.
It also acted as a "re-enactment" of the original fight between Suba and his teacher and gave Roberts character the decision of going down the same path as Suba, or finding redemption.
By the way, how authentic were the Fencing scenes in this movie?
shareThey were a mixture of real and made up- running attacks fleche yes, swirling a sword around your head preparatory to an attack would get you killed- the straight line thrust! Fencers often fence with absence of blade waiting for the opponent to make their move to draw them into a parry repost but that was stupid. Modern fencing is great fun however use of electrics instead of judging has caused more speed than defence so that you would attack confident that the repost would be "out of time" on the box in reality the more realistic fighter would make sure the opponents sword was fully engaged on contact or parry/beat after contact as well or just not be there for a repost. Foil is the worst affected by electrics the right of way rule designed to make you defend yourself if attacked has caused instead a suicidal attack confident that you are "safe" as you have right of way. I started fencing 12 years ago I've also been on a Rapier and medieval sword seminar, Ive practised Sword and buckler and Medieval great sword [2 handed], I've re-enacted[medieval] for 6 years from this ive drawn the conclusion that as long as there are rules controlling combat you change it so much that it no longer resembles that which it grew from - example I use a bill in combat I'm restricted to- 1.target area knees to lowest part of sturnum 2.padded/armoured area only 3.minimum impact 4.no sliding shaft through leading hand 5.both hands knuckles up 6. no use of hook on limbs or clothes all in the name of H&S consequently those using swords ignore the rat-tat on their breastplate as we hit the only bit we can they get close enough then they hit you when in reality they would be hacked to pieces first- I've heard it said by a swordsman to the public that a single bill man is no match for single swordsman then been asked to demonstrate and have shown the swords man up and even within rules have beaten them. people claim a hit!! because they make a cut to your leg with a sword when they have left their head completley exposed because they know that there are no head shots any weapon! the Rapier lesson made you defend yourself to stay alive and you used your other hand to grab opponent and grapple[parrying with a leather covered rear hand was allowed in fencing originally!] Long winded me sorry ! I've be to a fencing competition's and lost a fight because the foils plastic cup under the tip had fractured- so that a slow test on jacket worked but a heavy hit shorted and didnt! rules and equipment change everything.
The box, you opened it we came.
I'll second that initial sentiment and add a bit more pertaining to the movie. The foyning (thrusting) technique is pretty generally accurate, as are the cuts when Suba is practicing sabre about halfway through. The main source of rubbish comes when the rapier comes into play and Villard begins those full arm cuts, with the scene of Villard practicing rapier in the moonlight particularly hilarious. In rapier, the cut is a secondary attack (increasingly less so the older the rapier form, but the sword used in the movie is very young), and when used is much more conservative, using a violent action (raising of the blade) to prep, followed by a natural action (the descent) which uses the momentum of the blade with the weight of the body to create the cut. It can be used with a circular beginning, but that is generally used after an action such as a parry in which the movement has already begun. Starting a cut from out of distance in a large circular pattern as happens at the end of the movie is, as dark knight says, an invitation to have your two-time cut intercepted with a faster, single time thrust placed with the hilt in the path of the other blade to stop the cut and transfer its force into the person being stabbed. This really doesn't matter that much, however, since Villard's rapier is a relatively recent model using a triangular cross section like an epee... meaning that there's no edge. You can do a little cutting with the point, maybe, but its effectiveness is so low as to make its use silly (which is why epee is a thrust-only weapon). They also bound up the blade it that dramatic cross formation way more than is logical, but we all know they just do that because it make a dramatic frame and a reason to have a pause in the fighting.
As far as all the other fencing goes, you're probably going to hear from a lot of people that it's inaccurate for modern fencing, and they'd be somewhat right. The fencing of the advanced students, like Hobbs and Trevor, is fairly modern, though as a non-sport fencer I can't profess to know too much about how cutting edge the techniques are. It definitely seems like some of the most accurate fencing we've seen on screen in a while. The stuff that Suba's teaching his students is markably older, mid 21st century technique and is more like what some would now call classical fencing (though others would still say it's too new for that.. a lotta politics there -_^). The stance is a little more set, there're very little if any bouncing and the back arm is held hight and behind the head (with his students looking halfway between the two). If you notice, Suba is focusing a lot more on blade engagement (and that hand to hand engagement technique is based in reality), though he also has a good amount of focus in more italian blade absence techniques and footwork, such as the ballestra and the passata sotto that Clavelli uses for one of her last touches. The ballestra's certainly still around, but the more reserved way in which he does it definitely strikes of old. Clavelli's last fight is a great show of the differences in style the the classical emphasis on strategy. Her first two passes are more modern (notice more hopping), though she does semi-successfully use a demi volte. Her third pass, however, is much more classical. Less body movement, no straining to attack from out of distance, and the use of the passata sotta (stepping the back foot back and to the side, pressing the off hand to the ground, and sticking the blade out for the other guy to run into). It's still a legal move, but definitely seen more in antiquity. That's not to say that everything she does is perfect fencing (or Suba for that matter), but it's definitely the most accurate fencing I've seen in a movie. It's just kinda fence sitting technique wise. But full modern fencing and proper classical fencing are somewhat different games than what's portrayed in the movie, but it's a movie, It's definitely the best balance of theatricality and reality in the fencing that I've seen done in recent times.
Most of it appears to be accurate on a beginners level.
oh come on...drilling to music? who does this?
the epee breaking and then stabbing through the breeches...it was like wow dude you might want to invest in better equipment. 2 serious failures in one match...ha!
The movie was as cheesy as stilton...we only watch it when we get drunk...and mock it.
Ah, a Villard in the making :-)
shareWhy did villard go to suba's apt and say he wasn't suba, he died nine years ago?
shareVillard recognizes his father's fencing style and suspects he is a former student. He checks the records and finds Suba's name. However, when he runs a background check, he discovers Suba has been dead for 9 years.
It turns out F. Murray Abraham's character has been using Suba's name as an alias.
This deception makes Villard suspect he's actually the man who killed his father.
[deleted]
"He HAD to win, no matter how cowardly the method"
I disagree on the cowardly part. The way Villard narrates his father death to Suba (before he knew who Suba was), there is no indication about a cowardly kill. He actually believed Suba won the fight because he was the *best*, so Villard modeled his entire life on being the best, at all cost. This meant being as ruthless and as remorseless as he could be, because in a real duel only winning counts, since losing means death. Essentially, he wanted to become like Suba the assassin. What Suba does at the end is to correct that misconception. He didn't kill Villard's father because he was the best. There was no skill involved in what he did, no particular state of mind. He killed because he had the opportunity to do so, it was just plain cold murder. At the end, Suba is trying to redeem himself by saving Villard from following a path which would have led to his eventual destruction, and he was already inflicting the same distorted ideals on Trebor, which had to stop. You don't have to reject your own humanity in order to be the best. That was the lesson.
It’s a sad movie I think about a man who threw his life away over nothing. The scene where he worked up the courage to tell his love interest “I killed a man” & fessed up to who & what he was, was to me an emotionally powerful one but that’s repentance. It’s a powerful force. When he tried to tell Eric Robert’s character that what he did was nothing honorable or it wasn’t because he was “better” but it was cold blooded murder & that no it didn’t make him the better fencer or warrior.
I’m happy that fate gave him a second chance at the end to forgive himself & be forgiven by Roberts Maestro. Good movie, I’m bummed that I don’t even come across it on cable.
Yeah this movie is working on a lot of different levels.
I can't think anything remotely similar to it. There are a lot of movies about redemption and retribution, but very few as levelheaded and realistic as this one.
By The Sword felt grounded; the atmosphere, the characters, the awkward exchanges of dialogue (which happens way more in real life than most of us would like to admit). It felt like a movie set in a real place -- yet at the same time, in the academy, it seemed to take on the romantic air of classical tales. The way the swordplay was romanticized and filmed gave the movie that artistic edge that helps it stand apart from the typical slice-of-life movies from people like Woody Allen or Sydney Lemur.
Eric Roberts especially had a magnetic performance in this, and really does steal the show. In a less politicized Hollywood he would have been up for a best supporting Oscar nomination.