Your video, Dueling Hats, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

At least you've finally concluded that FOX is a propaganda campaign. The next question you need to tackle is why you think dueling propaganda machines is a good thing?

I would much rather see honest news come back and have all the propaganda marginalized. I would call that a very obvious need; propaganda from all angles, not so much.

>> ^mentality:
Isn't high level fencing aggressive because it doesn't matter if your opponent hits you as long as you hit them first? That sort of scoring system seems to naturally favor the one with the aggression and initiative.


Generally yes, it doesn't matter if your opponent hits you as long as you hit them first. There are "right of way" rules to establish who has the initiative and the right to attack, and in fencing as a sport there are actually judges to make rulings on whether or not a touch should be thrown out because the attacker didn't have the right of way. It can get confusing.

Basically, whoever attacks first takes the right of way, but their opponent can take it back by successfully making a parry. It gets gray when both people attack at nearly the same time, their swords/foils/whatever touch but not enough to deflect a touch, and both attacks hit. Usually they wear vests with sensors to light up and say who got hit first, but I think a judge can overrule that if they think that the person that got hit first had tried to parry/riposte the original attack.

I'd tend to say that just further explains my stance that it can't really be "realistic"; if it were an actual duel we wouldn't need judges and electric vests to say that person A or B touched first and therefore "won". Instead, they'd both be dead and we could safely say they both lost.

>> ^MilkmanDan:
If you watch high-level fencing, the participants are usually very aggressive. That is for a good reason -- high aggression usually results in more scored touches/points over time. But we're talking aggregate; over many many matches with many many participants, being more aggressive is usually better in terms of total points scored. However, that ignores the fact that if you participated in actual duels with non-blunted weapons with that same level of aggression, you might be slightly more likely to kill your first (, second, third ...) opponent, but you would also be more likely to get yourself killed. The tactics and approach are altered as a consequence of using blunted/nonlethal weapons as opposed to "shit gets real" tools of war.

Isn't high level fencing aggressive because it doesn't matter if your opponent hits you as long as you hit them first? That sort of scoring system seems to naturally favor the one with the aggression and initiative.

>> ^MilkmanDan:

If you watch high-level fencing, the participants are usually very aggressive. That is for a good reason -- high aggression usually results in more scored touches/points over time. But we're talking aggregate; over many many matches with many many participants, being more aggressive is usually better in terms of total points scored. However, that ignores the fact that if you participated in actual duels with non-blunted weapons with that same level of aggression, you might be slightly more likely to kill your first (, second, third ...) opponent, but you would also be more likely to get yourself killed. The tactics and approach are altered as a consequence of using blunted/nonlethal weapons as opposed to "shit gets real" tools of war.

I know next to nothing about fencing, but I watched it in the olympics out of interest, and I found myself thinking a lot of the strikes put the attacker in a really dangerous position if the swords were real. Good to know I was on the right track.

>> ^MilkmanDan:


As much as we might try to emulate the "real deal", I suppose that it can't be 100% authentic without authentic consequences (which is obviously impossible).


pffsh! Away with your defeatist attitude. Both participants sign waivers, we give them pointy swords and armour and hold it somewhere with a relaxed attitude to health and safety, like Indonesia, Zimbabwe or Texas.

Would be interesting in future to see combat sports eventually go virtual, with a matrix style environment that allows for no holds barred combat without an arbitrary victory condition.

That's cool, but to an eye trained on Hollywood battles, it ends up looking like it devolves into a girly slapfight. I think it is the very active use of the shields -- it just looks weird compared to expectations (expectations based on fake Hollywood choreography, but expectations nonetheless).

I took a fencing class in college. One thing that we talked about there was the fact that as fencing developed into a sport with points scored for "touches" as opposed to actual to-the-death or injury duels, it changed some of the tactics and allowed for variations even though the "intent" was to emulate the real deal in a fully realistic way.

If you watch high-level fencing, the participants are usually very aggressive. That is for a good reason -- high aggression usually results in more scored touches/points over time. But we're talking aggregate; over many many matches with many many participants, being more aggressive is usually better in terms of total points scored. However, that ignores the fact that if you participated in actual duels with non-blunted weapons with that same level of aggression, you might be slightly more likely to kill your first (, second, third ...) opponent, but you would also be more likely to get yourself killed. The tactics and approach are altered as a consequence of using blunted/nonlethal weapons as opposed to "shit gets real" tools of war.

As much as we might try to emulate the "real deal", I suppose that it can't be 100% authentic without authentic consequences (which is obviously impossible).

Looks like a duel for the fair maiden to me. Then again, what do I know? =oD

http://videosift.com/video/Father-and-son-duel-it-out-with-lightsabers-over-car-keys

OooooooooooH ... dueling douche bags ... what's not to love/hate? =o)

>> ^dotdude:

promote


My Dad's favorite movie.

Thanks, dotdude

The gun sounds at 1:31 are the duel pistols from Rise of the Triad pc game.

Yes, films can work for many different reasons. The number of reasons they can fail make the scales balance out nicely.

In case you haven't pinned it down yet, martial arts is not a favorite genre of mine. It's down there with animation and musicals. Despite this, I have seen films from each of these genres and enjoyed some of them.

I've never heard of the directors you mentioned but I can appreciate a meditative style. I didn't dislike Gus Van Sant's Gerry from years back, although I can't say I enjoyed it exactly. That was shot in the style you mentioned, I believe. So yes, I'm with you.

But if you expect me to meditate during the Raid, then I'm going to need more hard drugs. <- relax, this was a joke, I understand what you're saying about the role of story in the two kinds of films.
Jokes aside, however, I would respond to that point with this: which type of limited-story film allows for real-time reflection? The wall-to-wall actioner? Or an Andrey Tarkovskiy flick? Those slow-paced films can be downright transcendental if you're in the right frame of mind. I honestly can't ever see myself transcending anything while watching a martial arts flick. The story may be just as threadbare in each type of film but to my way of thinking, the meditative style brings more to the table by not only asking more of the audience but creating a setting where you can think about what you're watching while you watch. The Raid didn't involve me in that way. It didn't ask a thing of me. It just said, "here I am, no apologies, enjoy." Again, I am merely responding to your point about the role of story.

As far as my judgement of directors go, I wasn't really going there in my comments about The Raid. I was taking about the film only. If Bela Tarr or Apichatpong Weerasethakul (gesundheit!) made this film or that film, I'll only be able to say if the film was successful after I've watched it. If a director makes a film and it says what (s)he wants it to say and people see it and have a reaction...then that director is successful.

Despite what you may think, I do not have a checklist of things all good films must have before I declare them a success. Film is far too complex to attempt to codify all the things that make it good or bad.

>> ^Sarzy:

But different films can have different pleasures, and work for different reasons, can they not? Oldboy is an amazing film, yes, but it's good for very different reasons than The Raid.
Martial arts films have always been more about action poetry, and less about story and characters. Have you seen Enter the Dragon? It is regarded as one of the all-time classics in the genre, and yet the story is laughably simplistic, and the characters are all two-dimensional. The film works for reasons that go beyond its story and its plot. Bruce Lee was one of the greats, and that film was more about letting him do his thing than about telling a complex story. Film is about visual storytelling, yes, but if every film told the same story in the same way, and was restrained by the same rules, film would get pretty boring.
Bela Tarr makes films that unfold in amazingly long, uneventful takes. There is no story, nor are there (typically) any characters of any real note. His films are visual poetry, and they are rightfully loved by critics. Apichatpong Weerasethakul works in much the same way; his films are less about their stories and characters, and more about establishing a certain mood and tone using sound design and cinematography. By your rather narrow argument about what makes a film successful, both of these directors should be failures. They are not.
I love martial arts films because when they are done right, I feel like they are as close to pure cinema as you can get. There is no other medium in which you could tell a story like The Raid, and that is one of the things I love so much about it. It has a thin story, yes, but it has enough of a story to invest us in the characters and carry us through 90 minutes of action brilliance.
I think The Raid is a breathtaking piece of cinema. Ebert disagrees with me; that is his right. I agree with Ebert a lot, too, but in this case I think he's wrong. I get the impression that you haven't even seen it. Perhaps you should watch the movie before you argue so vehemently against it. (And don't say something stupid like "I don't need to watch it to know I'll hate it!" because that'll just make you look willfully ignorant. Open your mind a little bit.)
>> ^shuac:
>> ^Sarzy:
>> ^shuac:
One question for you, Sarzy. You say this film is a milestone. I'm sure you're right. Can you tell me why this film is a milestone?

Because the fight choreography and direction are peerless; the film's fight scenes easily rival anything that I've ever seen, and I've seen my share of action movies.

(Apologies for singling out in your quote what I felt is the real reason it's a milestone.) So this is the epitome of what a martial arts film is then, yes? Choreography and direction.
Well then I shall tuck my case under the covers and read it a story (a story your film lacks) because you just made Ebert's point.
Let me clarify a bit: do you know why the long, hallway fight scene in Oldboy was so effective? You know the scene I mean. That scene was effective because they paid for it, emotionally, in all the things that happened to that character before and after that scene. Not in spite of those scenes, the way The Raid seems to feel. But because of them. Conflict needs context or it's just action, action, action: like a mindless videogame.
Do you recall Red Letter Media's insightful Star Wars criticism series? He's the guy who holds hookers hostage while he makes them watch DVDs. Anyway, he made a similar point while discussing the big light saber duel between Anakin and Obi-Wan in Revenge of the Sith. His claim was that, as an action sequence, it failed because too sparse of an emotional investment was made toward these characters. Context is important.
Blankfist's not here to assist on this point but film is visual storytelling. Visual. Storytelling. I'm not going to try to tell you that one is more important than the other but they both should be there. At least, in the sort of films that engage me as a viewer.
To ChaosEngine: I'm unimpressed by ad populum arguments (that because it's popular, it must therefore be true, or good, or whatever). It's a logical fallacy and I don't dig fallacies so much. Also, regarding the case for the value of terse storytelling: well done sir! If only Ebert and I were arguing against terse storytelling, you'd really have us against the ropes. You dropped some straw, man.
Now, I don't agree with Mr. Ebert on everything, but our tastes are fairly simpatico. And I happen to know Sarzy's are too. Sarzy was the one who got me watching "Community," also the one promoting Paul Thomas Anderson's wonderful There Will Be Blood as though he financed it!

But different films can have different pleasures, and work for different reasons, can they not? Oldboy is an amazing film, yes, but it's good for very different reasons than The Raid.

Martial arts films have always been more about action poetry, and less about story and characters. Have you seen Enter the Dragon? It is regarded as one of the all-time classics in the genre, and yet the story is laughably simplistic, and the characters are all two-dimensional. The film works for reasons that go beyond its story and its plot. Bruce Lee was one of the greats, and that film was more about letting him do his thing than about telling a complex story. Film is about visual storytelling, yes, but if every film told the same story in the same way, and was restrained by the same rules, film would get pretty boring.

Bela Tarr makes films that unfold in amazingly long, uneventful takes. There is no story, nor are there (typically) any characters of any real note. His films are visual poetry, and they are rightfully loved by critics. Apichatpong Weerasethakul works in much the same way; his films are less about their stories and characters, and more about establishing a certain mood and tone using sound design and cinematography. By your rather narrow argument about what makes a film successful, both of these directors should be failures. They are not.

I love martial arts films because when they are done right, I feel like they are as close to pure cinema as you can get. There is no other medium in which you could tell a story like The Raid, and that is one of the things I love so much about it. It has a thin story, yes, but it has enough of a story to invest us in the characters and carry us through 90 minutes of action brilliance.

I think The Raid is a breathtaking piece of cinema. Ebert disagrees with me; that is his right. I agree with Ebert a lot, too, but in this case I think he's wrong. I get the impression that you haven't even seen it. Perhaps you should watch the movie before you argue so vehemently against it. (And don't say something stupid like "I don't need to watch it to know I'll hate it!" because that'll just make you look willfully ignorant. Open your mind a little bit.)

>> ^shuac:

>> ^Sarzy:
>> ^shuac:
One question for you, Sarzy. You say this film is a milestone. I'm sure you're right. Can you tell me why this film is a milestone?

Because the fight choreography and direction are peerless; the film's fight scenes easily rival anything that I've ever seen, and I've seen my share of action movies.

(Apologies for singling out in your quote what I felt is the real reason it's a milestone.) So this is the epitome of what a martial arts film is then, yes? Choreography and direction.
Well then I shall tuck my case under the covers and read it a story (a story your film lacks) because you just made Ebert's point.
Let me clarify a bit: do you know why the long, hallway fight scene in Oldboy was so effective? You know the scene I mean. That scene was effective because they paid for it, emotionally, in all the things that happened to that character before and after that scene. Not in spite of those scenes, the way The Raid seems to feel. But because of them. Conflict needs context or it's just action, action, action: like a mindless videogame.
Do you recall Red Letter Media's insightful Star Wars criticism series? He's the guy who holds hookers hostage while he makes them watch DVDs. Anyway, he made a similar point while discussing the big light saber duel between Anakin and Obi-Wan in Revenge of the Sith. His claim was that, as an action sequence, it failed because too sparse of an emotional investment was made toward these characters. Context is important.
Blankfist's not here to assist on this point but film is visual storytelling. Visual. Storytelling. I'm not going to try to tell you that one is more important than the other but they both should be there. At least, in the sort of films that engage me as a viewer.
To ChaosEngine: I'm unimpressed by ad populum arguments (that because it's popular, it must therefore be true, or good, or whatever). It's a logical fallacy and I don't dig fallacies so much. Also, regarding the case for the value of terse storytelling: well done sir! If only Ebert and I were arguing against terse storytelling, you'd really have us against the ropes. You dropped some straw, man.
Now, I don't agree with Mr. Ebert on everything, but our tastes are fairly simpatico. And I happen to know Sarzy's are too. Sarzy was the one who got me watching "Community," also the one promoting Paul Thomas Anderson's wonderful There Will Be Blood as though he financed it!

>> ^Sarzy:

>> ^shuac:
One question for you, Sarzy. You say this film is a milestone. I'm sure you're right. Can you tell me why this film is a milestone?

Because the fight choreography and direction are peerless; the film's fight scenes easily rival anything that I've ever seen, and I've seen my share of action movies.


(Apologies for singling out in your quote what I felt is the real reason it's a milestone.) So this is the epitome of what a martial arts film is then, yes? Choreography and direction.

Well then I shall tuck my case under the covers and read it a story (a story your film lacks) because you just made Ebert's point.

Let me clarify a bit: do you know why the long, hallway fight scene in Oldboy was so effective? You know the scene I mean. That scene was effective because they paid for it, emotionally, in all the things that happened to that character before and after that scene. Not in spite of those scenes, the way The Raid seems to feel. But because of them. Conflict needs context or it's just action, action, action: like a mindless videogame.

Do you recall Red Letter Media's insightful Star Wars criticism series? He's the guy who holds hookers hostage while he makes them watch DVDs. Anyway, he made a similar point while discussing the big light saber duel between Anakin and Obi-Wan in Revenge of the Sith. His claim was that, as an action sequence, it failed because too sparse of an emotional investment was made toward these characters. Context is important.

Blankfist's not here to assist on this point but film is visual storytelling. Visual. Storytelling. I'm not going to try to tell you that one is more important than the other but they both should be there. At least, in the sort of films that engage me as a viewer.

To ChaosEngine: I'm unimpressed by ad populum arguments (that because it's popular, it must therefore be true, or good, or whatever). It's a logical fallacy and I don't dig fallacies so much. Also, regarding the case for the value of terse storytelling: well done sir! If only Ebert and I were arguing against terse storytelling, you'd really have us against the ropes. You dropped some straw, man.

Now, I don't agree with Mr. Ebert on everything, but our tastes are fairly simpatico. And I happen to know Sarzy's are too. Sarzy was the one who got me watching "Community," also the one promoting Paul Thomas Anderson's wonderful There Will Be Blood as though he financed it!

Dueling idiots.