...it was because Archie was just too damn good, Liam couldn't have possible won a fair match. So the director had to come up with something that's out of the blue.
Seeing Avatar is one of the best things that has happened to me.
Archie was good, but in the end he fought someone he couldn't outlast.
"...you're forgetting one thing- I just started using laser cats again!"
It wasn't a ridiculous ending. Many a superior fighter, down through the centuries, has lost to an opponent he could have and should have beaten, because he took that opponent too lightly, toyed with him instead of finishing him off, showboated, or otherwise took unnecessary chances, and thus gave the inferior, but desperate opponent an opening which that opponent exploited. Fighting isn't just about skill, it's also about psychology, about knowing your opponent, and exploiting your opponent's weaknesses.
Had Archie simply pressed in and gone for a quick kill, Rob would have lost. Had he not stopped to gloat, once Rob dropped to his knees, wounded and completely spent, Rob would have lost. Had he not paused to show off before his audience, unnecessarily and theatrically asking permission to deliver the coup de grâce, Rob would have lost. In doing these things, things his arrogant and selfish character impelled him to do, he gave Rob openings. Rob was simply determined and skillful enough to exploit the last one.
Yeah but Rob had lost and was down - He won not through honour but through pride. He did need permission for the kill too because that bit was settled between the two dukes, so as one might have public advanged over the other (and with much satisfaction).
shareWell said darren. Cunningham clearly underestimated his resolve. I can't even imagine the extent of that wound to his hand, but I suggest it would have taken more than a loose rag to mend it, let alone stop the bleeding. There is an old proverb, "A drowning man will grasp even the end of a sword."
"..Combined with the spirit of bold curiosity for the adventure ahead!"
Well, the wound to the hand might not necessarily be that severe. Even a razor sharp blade will not cut unless it either chops or presses down with sufficient force (which it didn't in this case), or it slides across the surface being cut, causing a slicing action. That didn't appear to happen in this case either. It didn't appear that Cunningham tried to yank it out of MacGregor's grip (which would have inflicted very deep lacerations), more like MacGregor simply gripped it tight enough for the edge to bite into his flesh -- perhaps trying to prevent Cunningham from doing that very thing.
share"very deep lacerations"..I submit, to grip the blade hard enough to resist it being pulled from his hand would cut his hand to the very bone and would be bleeding profusely. Severed veins, tendons, nerves. His hand wouldn't ever be the same, especially three centuries ago.
"..Combined with the spirit of bold curiosity for the adventure ahead!"
Again, not necessarily. Cunningham's sword was a slender rapier. Many of them didn't even have sharp edges at all because the rapier just doesn't cut well, so a sharp edge wasn't needed. Rapiers are dedicated thrusting swords, and not good for anything else. That's why they were strictly civilian swords, and apart from high-ranking officers who'd never actually have to use them, they never saw use on the battlefield.
For that matter, even good cutting swords sometimes had less edge than you think. Look at some of the half-swording techniques used with late medieval and renaissance longswords. The user will, at certain times, actually grip the blade with his bare hand, and sometimes even use both hands on the blade to hit his opponent with the hilt, or hook the guard behind his leg, and so forth. This sort of thing could not be done with a razor-edged blade.
Swords are not knives, and even sharp ones have a different, less acute cutting bevel on the edge than knives do. This is because a sword edge saw harder use than a knife's. A really razor sharp edge cuts well, but it's also more easily damaged. So a sword was sharpened enough to deliver severe cuts, when it hacks or slashes into the target with all the power of the swordsman's body behind it. But the edge won't perform fine slicing like a carving knife. If it could, it wouldn't be sturdy enough to hold an edge during combat.
darren, you're right, it was a rapier that Cunningham chose. It was however not a foil, so I suggest it did have an edge. If it hadn't then McGregor's hand wouldn't have been cut by it. And the idea that you could hold fast on the edge or end of a blade to the extent that your opponent would be unable to pull it free does seem highly unlikely. It's simply a matter of leverage.
"..Combined with the spirit of bold curiosity for the adventure ahead!"
darren-oconnor^
Very nice analysis of the final sword fight :)
"I can't stand a naked light bulb, any more than..a rude remark or a vulgar action" Blanche DuBois
[deleted]
Archie didn't expect some-one to hold onto a sword that severed through to the bone of their hand - it was a black swan event in the fight and a perfectly reasonable excuse for Rob winning. Plus, it showed that skill and arrogance could be beaten by determination and conviction.
shareumme4uke^
Nice!
And, the reference to the 'black swan event' :)
Again, nice!
"I can't stand a naked light bulb, any more than..a rude remark or a vulgar action" Blanche DuBois
Avatar was a CGI piece of *beep* designed for american kids. If you loved that film so much I'm surprised you saw this one.
"..Combined with the spirit of bold curiosity for the adventure ahead!"
I aggree with others! It is believable, Archie was playing wwith him beacuse he underestimated both him and his weapon (a cleaver as he put it in his first scene.
He was obviously skilled, so he could have gone for Rob's throat, where even a rapier would do enogh damage, and if you watch closely he did get a chance, but didn't use it. Even when Rob was disarmed, he reveled in his defenselessness(remember his evil smile) and waited long enough that Rob came out with that desperate move. Also I like how bot the "cleaver" and the crude way of fighting which he mocked earlier were just what finished him of so quickly and "thoroughly". Rob was much stronger (and of course quite unskilled and awkward for Archie) but when he made that slash through his chest, both his crude highland strength and his heavier (and made for cutting)sword made what rapier could not. The ending was perfect, it created suspense, but it didn't violate the fact that Archie was a better swordsman.
I liked the ending myself and to the poster who wrote that it was a case of determination and conviction overcoming skill and arrogance, well put
shareI think the scene showing Rob Roy holding Cunningham's blade is a bit drawn out for dramatic purposes - the cut to Rob picking up his sword, for example - and is meant to represent a shorter time span of the actual event than is depicted onscreen. When you factor in the surprise that Cunningham felt when something like that happened, which he had probably never seen before and never expected, coupled with his hesitation about what to do about it - "WHA?...Do I pull, push, or twist?" - and the mere two or three seconds it took for Rob to grab his sword and strike (while uttering a very intimidating growl, btw)...it's perfectly plausible that Cunningham would've been taken so off-guard and overcome with fear and disbelief that his reaction time wouldn't be sufficient to counter the final death blow. In effect, Cunningham froze for a very short time, which was all Rob needed.
........the idiotic cock-eyed flum-dummery!
This is what I noticed, and perhaps I am seeing too much into this movie.
There were two instances earlier in the film in which Rob catches Archie off guard because of two things: one, it was an unorthodox move and two, Archie hestitates because of it.
The first time is when Montrose gives Archie the order to apprehend Rob right there on the spot. Archie approaches Rob and Rob pulls out a short blade and holds it to the Archie's throat.
The second is when the order is given for Rob to be hung and Rob grabs some rope and throws it around Archie's neck. Archie's look on his face is "WTF?" and JUST STANDS THERE for a couple of seconds allowing this be done. This EXACT same thing happens when Rob grabs his "cleaver" to finish Archie off in the end. Archie just stands there, looking confused, and doesn't even think to move out of the way when Rob throws the fatal blow.
There were two instances earlier in the film in which Rob catches Archie off guard because of two things: one, it was an unorthodox move and two, Archie hestitates because of it.
Good observations. And in neither of those instances were Archie and Rob engaged in a proper duel -- so it seems that Rob has the ability to surprise/stun Archie even when the latter doesn't have expectations as to what the "rules" will be.
----
Lazy + smart = efficient.
[deleted]
Several times he stuns Archie with his sudden and unexpected moves, yeah. Rob was just that much better in battle than Archie. More experienced.
shareCunningham lost because he's a bastard.
He was born a bastard and this gave him an inferiority complex, which made him want to compensate by dominating almost everyone. This is why he rapes Mary, strangles the Duke's aid as a warning, deflowers Betty and tosses her aside, and play with his opponents when dueling. He likes to proclaim his own sense of power and lord it over anyone and everyone.
In both of his duels, he clearly had the psychological advantage the whole time. It was only when he lost power -Rob grabbed his sword- that he became vunerable and got cleaved nearly in half (Ahhh, what a pleasant memory). While Rob only focused on killing him, Cunningham spent the fight showing everyone that he could easily kick Rob's butt because his mental baggage from being a bastard required such displays of power until it killed him.
I would think that as soon as MacGregor had grabed the sword, Cunningham would have pulled it back.
I would have preferred it if MacGregor had whipped out a pistol and wasted him.
Life is for lovers, and lovers are for life.
"I would think that as soon as MacGregor had grabed the sword, Cunningham would have pulled it back."
He tried (weakly). And he couldn't.
Rob won because he didn't play Cunningham's game. Rob's robust fighting style was far different from the stylized, dance-like moves that Cunningham employed. The element of surprise also played a role in Rob's victory. I suspect he might have been a bit less exhausted than he let on, to lure Cunningham into overconfidence.
"It ain't dying I'm talking about, it's living!!!"
Augustus McCrae
And you undoubtedly loved the scene in "Raiders of the Lost Ark" when the hero in confronted by a swordsman showing off his awesome skill, and takes out his piston and shoots the guy dead. Typical American simple-mindedness. Yes, we have more and bigger guns. So we don't need skill, or knowledge, or subtlety. Yay!
shareAnd you undoubtedly loved the scene in "Raiders of the Lost Ark" when the hero in confronted by a swordsman showing off his awesome skill, and takes out his [pistol] and shoots the guy dead.
Well, I can't speak for filmfanaticNorCal, but I did; I thought it was funny as hell. But then I guess I'm just a typical simple-minded American.
It's even funnier when you know that Harrison Ford had a cold on that day of shooting and asked if he could just blow the guy away with a pistol, and Spielberg approved. That's two more typical simple-minded Americans . . .
----
Lazy + smart = efficient.
contrarywise,
Go *beep* yourself. And next time your country (what ever it is) needs the USA to bail its sorry @$$ out, kneel and kiss our @$$e$ first. You're welcome.
"It ain't dying I'm talking about, it's LIVING!"
Captain Augustus McCrae
Hey contrarywise! it's just lame to bash the Americans for that scene, because it is a funny scene that appeals to anyone with a little sense of humor. Im from Europe and I love that scene aswell, the best in the entire Indiana Jones movie. So please stop the lame hate on American people as soon a gun is shown in a movie, its just pathetic.
shareYou have to be the hulk to be able to hold onto a blade in a fashion that is shown in the movie. If Archie had just pulled it away there is no possible way,
irregardless of how strong Rob is. It's just plain physics. But this is a movie and I have no problem with the ending and found them ovie very enjoyable. It would've been more realistic however if Rob's kill came on more quickly although less cinematic.
No, SwedishPsycho. You don't have to be the Hulk; it would suffice to be a Lawrence of Arabia ("The trick is
not to mind the pain"). As long as you keep the blade from slicing, the cuts are only superficial.
MacGregor would have been killed instantly for violating the code duello. This wasn't just a fight, it was a formalized duel. There were rules to those things. Someone mentioned the scene in "Raiders of the Lost Ark" where Indy just shoots the swordsman. Well why wouldn't he? He had a gun, and that was a guy who brought a (big) knife to a gunfight.
But the fight between Rob and Archie was something else: a duel, and duels were formal affairs, and they had rules, and if you broke them, you were a viewed as a coward who cheated. Even if you weren't killed by the duel's referee, you were branded a coward and were ostracized.
MacGregor would have been killed instantly for violating the code duello.
Very likely. It's also very unlikely that Guthrie would have intended to duel only to the "first cut," which, if I'm not mistaken, would have been regarded at the time as dishonorable.
But I hope nobody was watching this film for historical accuracy anyway.
----
Lazy + smart = efficient.