More Interviews John Waller, 2017

These are the responses to questions from Brian LeTraunik, who was writing, and has since published  a book about the history of "Stage" Combat, from the founding of the Society of British Fight Directors in 1969, of which John was a founding member, til the Present day, 2017/18. 

(I note these were sent to Brian on the 20th April  2017, a year to the day before John died. )

The book can be found here (It should be noted that I have not read the book)

A History of Contemporary Stage Combat 1969 - Today

From Routledge

From Amazon

John Waller

FGSMD - Fellow of the Guildhall School of Music and Drama

HHCRA - Honoury Historical Consultant to the Royal Armouries

"Look everyone in the eye and never trust anybody."

 

 

1 Could you speak a bit about how you came to be involved in stage combat?

 

I have been interested in history since I was a boy, growing up watching movies such as Robert Taylor in Ivanhoe and Knights of the Round Table. That interest in history lead to my becoming a field archer in late 50's. Through this I met like minded individuals and I founded The Medieval Society in 1963.

 

We researched and practiced with weapons made by members who were talented craftsmen. This included swords with blades made from aircraft aluminium, which gave weapons that could be used that followed closely the weight and dimensions of the originals, giving better insight in to how they could be used. At this time there was not the access to accurate usable reproductions that there is now.

 

During this time I was working for Lilywhites the sporting store in Piccadilly, as a professional archer and ran their archery department

 

Over Christmas 1965 the London Palladium were going to stage the Robin Hood Pantomime, Babes in the Wood. Someone from the Palladium came to Lilywhites to purchase bows and arrows and seeking someone to teach the actors to shoot and also to stage an archery competition that was to take place live on stage, and so I became involved in the production. They also wanted to have fights and because of work I had been doing relating to the use of historical weapons and fighting styles I also took on the fight direction, working with the main characters using broadswords, flails and other authentic weapons. The rest as they say is history

 

1a- And what training was like when you first started?

 

There really wasn't any. If one went to a drama school such as LAMDA or RADA one would receive instruction in fencing, foil, epee and sabre and anyone considering fights for theatre film or TV, the base would generally be fencing of that style.  

 

However being neither an actor nor coming from a theatrical background I did not follow that path. I believed that fencing at that time would not be a good style on which to base the mechanics and use of weapons outside of its scope.

 

I had been, as I mentioned, with The Medieval Society reproducing and using weapons that closely followed the weight and dimensions of the originals. Through this practice I had already started to conceive of a philosophy and principles of combat beyond the techniques of fencing.

 

We would occasionally train in the salle of a Professor Woodgains who was the fencing master at Goldsmiths College in South London. He had been a fencing master in the Cavalry, and I felt his style and use of the sabre was complimentary to how I was working with my own study. He also let us use our own weapons there as he was intrigued by the weapons themselves and how our practice was developing. With continuing practice my approach developed more fully.

 

When I was able to obtain access to period fight manuals, not an easy thing in those days, I saw that what I had discovered or rather rediscovered was found in many of them and told me I was going in the right direction. 

  

2 What were some of the reasons for the founding of the SBFD? 

 

I had come to know people who worked as what we would now consider fight directors, those who stuck out were Bill Hobbs, Derek Ware, a stunt man, Henry Marshall who was the teacher at RADA, Ian MacKay and others names whose names I can’t now remember.

 

I believe that at that time there was no official recognition in the business or within Equity for the type of work we did for Theatre film and TV or in Drama schools.

 

So the Society was formed as a body of those that worked in those areas.

 

2a How did you all band together to codify a stage combat system?

 

We didn't. At no point was there a unified system in place within the society. Everyone practiced and taught what they personally thought was important.

 

Most had come from a theatrical background, being trained and working as actors first and becoming involved in stage combat second. Their base was from the fencing taught at that time adapted to the context it was placed, whether for stage or screen.

 

While I, as I mentioned, approached things differently; I came from an understanding of why and how people would have fought in different periods and how the weapons they would have had, could have been used within the context they were in. Then adapt that to the theatrical situation. I would make use of what we now consider being universal principles underlying moment in general and combat specifically. My philosophy has always been Reality First, Theatricality second and Look everyone in the eye and don’t trust anyone.

 

Later the SBFD began certifying students in drama schools and even then, while there was a general agreement on what aspects a student should know and be able to do to pass the test, it was only broadly outlined, so teachers continued to instruct their students from their own philosophy and approach.

 

For example, for us the key principle in stage combat is sustained eye contact. This was not the case for other teachers, who either did not think it important or dismissed it altogether.

 

During my years actively teaching, principally at The Guildhall School of Music and Drama, The London Academy of Music and Drama, The Drama Studio, UK,  The Arts Educational School, The British and European Studies Group; I would not examine the students of other teachers, as there were important aspects in their teaching with which I disagreed.

 

However during that time the other teachers would assess the students I had taught.

 

There were moves over the years to more tightly define things but the differing philosophies and approaches continued among the members. A change in focus of the organization from fight direction to fight teaching lead in around 1996 to the SBFD changing its name, to The British Academy of Dramatic Combat.

 

Also there were internal disagreements that lead to people breaking away from the BADC to form separate organizations; including the BASSC and later the APC. Each group follows and emphasizes its own approach to stage combat and philosophy.

 

Recently my son Jonathan, along with Jonathan Howell, Rodney Cottier, Kristina Soeborg, have founded The British Guild of Stage Combat, to allow them to pursue more fully the teaching and practice of stage combat under the principles and aspects they hold to.

 

3a. What are some of the most important innovations you have seen develop in technique or fight direction? 

 

No innovation as such. However the move from what was very much a fencing based approach to what we now call stage combat and what I have striven for myself, which was to make use of combative principles and to use historically accurate weapons, and movement based in historical combat technique, again my philosophy of reality first theatricality second.

 

Another would be aspects such as eye contact. As I mentioned I have always used eye contact, it is the key element in our approach to training and the performance of fights. Initially almost no one used eye contact or even thought it important. Now almost everyone at least acknowledges eye contact as being important even if they don't actually apply it.

 

3b What advances would you like to see?

 

To see more truthful and engaging fights that come from the context of the story they are part of and are intended to further, while using appropriate weapons and technique. Fights emphasizing the philosophy and principles what we hold to.

 

I believe that those I have taught over the years, some of whom have themselves become teachers and Fight Directors have adopted this, Jonathan Howell, Geoffrey Alm, Michael Cawelti, Mike Loades amongst others.

While those that most closely follow the tenets that I hold, my son Jonathan. Rodney Cottier, Kristina Soeborg work to do this and to deepen and expand the approach I began, as they continue on the journey I started all those years ago.

  

4 How have you seen the role of the fight director change since you have been practicing?

 

The significant changes would in the titles applied to the role and the concept of the part stage combat plays in a production.

 

Changing titles such as fencing or sword master, Fight choreographer, fight co-coordinator or fight arranger to Fight Director.

 

I always considered myself a Fight Director, someone who directs the actors through the situation that the characters are in when the violence takes place, rather than a person whose only job was to come up with and teach a sequence to moves to the actors.

 

Another change has been that actors and directors appreciate the contribution a Fight Director should make to the whole story rather than just the technical aspects of the "fight".

 

Understanding that fights do not just happen from nowhere, so one needs to view the action from the context it develops in and why it happens. There is also the personal aspect of not only understanding what the character should do but more importantly the abilities of the actor and what they are capable of; also to work through a personal connection to bring these abilities out of the actor.

Of course this is not universal within the business but I have been fortunate enough to have had a good relationship with all those I worked with throughout my career.

 

In 1993-94 with my increased involvement with the Royal Armouries Museum as their Creative Director I stopped teaching at drama schools, which my son then taught at. Once I moved to North Yorkshire to be closer to the Museums location in Leeds, I continued to work for TV and Theatre, my Armouries commitments permitting, on many productions and projects at The West Yorkshire Playhouse and for Opera North, amongst others

 

I don’t consider that I could have had a better person to perpetuate what I have done than my son Jonathan, and if this doesn’t prove it ( see attached picture. it was taken when Jonathan was about 9) nothing will…

 

P.S.

I was lucky to not only be a fighter but an archer, horseman, falconer and researcher of history, all of which feed in to my first interest, of how things would have been done and that feed into and informed my work as a fight director

Another slice of history, John Waller interview 1993

 Another slightly later slice of history

Extracted from Norrie Epsteins Book; The Friendly Shakespeare, Published 1993

Again, looking at how things have both moved and things have stayed the same.We must keep what works, while looking to see how we can make things achieve the outcomes better

John Waller: Swordplay and Dueling

Is it enough that a Shakespearean actor speak the lines and act; he must also appear to be an accomplished duelist. As a choreographer of combat, a fight director must make terrified actors look like fierce adversaries. John Waller has been directing fights, battles, and duels for over twenty-five years, and his numerous credits include Ian McKellen's 1989 Richard III at the National Theatre in London and the films Anne of the Thousand Days and The French Lieutenant's Woman.

NE: What is a fight director's goal?

JW: To have an actor do ten blows and have the audience believes that the characters are trying to kill each other. Too much stylistic choreography isn't convincing. It must be a matter of life and death.

NE: How do you get an actor to want to kill someone and at the same time, hold back?

JW: The actor should not feel like killing; the character they play should. Actors are not all that physical, so someone who is really aggressive and strong can be truly frightening. Though one opponent may be baring their teeth and flashing their eyes, the partner should be able to see that they are in control. But all the audience should see is the aggression ­ that's the hard bit
.

NE: How do you go about staging a fight?

JW: What you first do is assess an actor's physical presence, and then you try to persuade them that the character would have been good at fighting. If they are big and heavy, then you choreograph in character. You combine the actual fight with the actor's physique and choreograph around that.

NE: How about staging big battle scenes?

JW: You just have to get everybody moving to fill all the spaces. If you get three people fighting, two against one, and they're the main focus, then you get them to hold center stage. When it's time for them to move, their space is immediately filled by another couple. The other characters fight, but they put slightly less intensity into their movements; otherwise, the audience's eyes would stray from the central actors. If you have two young spear carriers swashbuckling away on stage and you find yourself looking at them instead of the main actors, well, that's wrong. That's not where the emphasis should be.

NE: What sort of fights do you think Shakespeare staged?

JW: They must have been phenomenal, and he always put them at the end of the play as a climax. The actors would have been laughed off the stage if they weren't any good. He wrote at a time when nearly all men fought with swords, from the aristocrats who knew all the newfangled Italian fencing styles and terms, to the apprentice boys who fought with sword and buckler in the English manner. Shakespeare even has Mercutio poking fun of Tybalt's Italian techniques in Romeo and Juliet. What Shakespeare seems to be saying is, it’s all a bit fancy for us English.

NE: How can Richard be a great warrior if he's handicapped?

JW: That's always a problem with Richard III. All actors want to play him with a deformity. But the play is set in about 1480, when the essence of being a knight was to ride horses - the knight on horseback was the equivalent of a tank. When a person is as deformed as Richard is portrayed as being, with a withered arm and a gamey leg, then he logically wouldn't be able to ride a medieval war-horse, which you ride with your left hand because your right hand is the one you fight with.

NE: So how did the real Richard III fight?

JW: It's Olivier's portrayal that everyone copies. Richard had been fighting hand to hand for years and was still fighting when he was killed. Though an actor can play him with some deformity, it shouldn't hinder him from proving what a great warrior he was. If he is too deformed he wouldn't be able to ride a medieval war-horse, so there would be little point in him saying, "A horse! A horse! My kingdom for a horse!"

NE: What's your opinion of the famous duel in Olivier's Hamlet ?

JW: It's exciting. But if you ask me if I believe in it, well, not completely. It does not tell the story of Hamlet as much as it should. Hamlets duel is a very difficult thing to direct. Hamlet sets out to patch up the argument with Laertes, and he thinks the duel is just an ordinary fencing match. But Laertes intends to cheat him with a poisoned sword. So they begin to fence, and Hamlet keeps scoring the points, and Laertes can't get him with the sharp sword. So when Hamlet finally is hit and sees his blood, he becomes upset, because he's trying to be a nice guy and his opponent is going for him with a sharp sword. But he still doesn't realize he's dying. So he tries to get the sword away from Laertes, and then he goes for him with it. Now he thinks Laertes is frightened because he has a sharp sword, but he doesn't know that Laertes is frightened because he's got a poisoned sharp sword! Do you see what I mean? It's quite complicated to dramatize. And then, of course, the match turns into a brawl. So you've got an ordinary fencing match and then an aggressive fencing match with Laertes actually fighting for his life. All the while Hamlet never knows that he's also fighting for his life. Although Olivier's duel is exciting, it didn't show all of this.

NE: Wouldn't this be lost on an audience?

JW: If it's done properly and they know the story, no. The movement and the choreography should tell the story of the play. Most of all, the audience has to believe that the characters are fulfilling the demands of the plot. At no time must the audience believe that the actor is in danger. That's the hard part.

Some History, an interview with John Waller,1989

 A slice of History on what we teach and where it has come from.

Any approach should, or must evolve, we need to consider where it comes from, examine and maintain that things that are effective, and look to improve things, while not just changing for the sake of changing.

By the time of this interview the methods had been in development for over 26 years, professionally for 24 years and had been taught in Drama schools for 13 years. 

Extracted from Masters of the Stage By Eva Meckler, 1989

John Waller 

John Waller is Combat Master at the London Academy of Music and Dramatic Art (LAMDA), the Guildhall School of Music and Drama, the Arts Educational School, the Drama Studio, and the British and European Studies Group. He is a founder member of the British Society of Fight Directors. M r: Waller's stage work includes choreographing sword fights and stage combat at the Royal Court Theatre, Regent's Park Theatre, and the Glyndebourne Festival Opera. 

Mr Waller is also an expert horseman, archer, and falconer and has worked on many films, including Monty Python and the Holy Grail, Anne of the Thousand Days, and The French Lieutenant's Woman. His television work spans a wide range of projects from TV movies and BBC series, such as Dr. Who and Bleak House, to commercials and documentaries on archery and weapons. M r Waller has had a lifelong interest in ancient weapons and medieval customs and is a frequent consultant on historical film projects. 

The course I teach is called Stage Combat, but the same techniques are used in film and television as well as on stage. What I try to do is choreograph a sword fight to look as it would have in the period in which the play takes place. If a play is set in the nineteenth century, for example, I will base the fight scenes on how people fought at that time. 

If you were producing Romeo and Juliet and you wanted it set in sixteenth-century Italy, you would expect your choreographer to choreograph a pavane or a galliard for the dance scenes; you'd want your lighting designer to create the effect of candlelight instead of oil lamps, and you'd expect the set design and costumes to be of that period as well. Why shouldn't you expect the fight director to create the combat scenes using all the shapes of that period, which are, in my opinion, more beautiful than any contrived modern theatrical shapes. If you changed the setting of the play to nineteenth-century England , then I would choreograph a nineteenth-century fight. Of course, I take certain liberties. It is not always possible to be a purist, but it is something to strive for. 

How has the approach to stage combat changed?

Most contemporary fight directors choreograph combat scenes using modern fencing techniques, regardless of the period the play is set in. Originally, English actors just learned contemporary fencing with masks. Then Bill Hobbs, who was instrumental in upgrading the idea of stage fight, turned it into a balletic form of swordplay while using some period shapes. But I believe his emphasis is more on movement than authentic shapes. In drama schools today there are two schools of thought. Some schools teach this form of balletic swordplay, but in the twelve schools where I and my colleagues teach, students are taught through my historic "shapes" approach. 

Sword fighting is not what you see in Hollywood movies, which do not use period fighting styles. What we do is teach the actor how to move like a swordsman of a specific period as much as possible. Then I incorporate certain techniques to develop the actor's stage awareness. I don't just teach Elizabethan or Georgian sword fighting. I teach actors certain moves that denote the style of the period in which the play takes place. In addition, students learn how to maintain eye contact, how to develop their peripheral vision, their sense of balance, and sense of center; all of which makes the fight appear motivated and authentic. I teach the student to move in ways that are, according to my research, Elizabethan or Georgian, etc., and these moves lend a certain authentic shape to the fight.

Could You Give Me an Example of the Difference Between the Elizabethan Shape and Some Other Period? 

In the Elizabethan period, swords were much longer and heavier than they are in modem fencing, as a visit to any museum will show. Therefore, if I impose a modem fencing stance on an actor using Elizabethan weapons, it changes their sense of center and sense of balance, and alters the intention they will convey to an audience. Modern swords are lighter and enable the actor to stand much more square on and use more arm movements. An eighteenth-century or Georgian swordsman is more like the modern fencer except that he still had vestiges of movement left over from earlier times. People today are preoccupied with Eastern martial arts because they find them so graceful. In my opinion Elizabethan sword fighting is just as graceful because, given the size and shape of the weapons, these movements are the most efficient ways to defend yourself. There are no extraneous movements and its simplicity gives it a pure and elegant form. 

How people fought also depended on the clothes they wore, whether it was armor or Georgian cuffs, and particularly the kind of footwear worn during the period. For instance, during Louis XIV's reign, people in his court walked with big bucket boots. They either had to walk bow-legged like a cowboy, or pass their legs round each other-which is how they danced; hence one of the ballet steps was developed. If the boots can affect the way you dance, and the way you carry a sword can affect the way you bow, then those things can affect the way you sword fight. 

How Is Your Class Structured? 

Our basic teaching starts from students learning how to maintain eye contact. There isn't a martial art that doesn't work from the eyes. Then we teach the actor how to hit a mark on the floor while maintaining eye contact with their partner, and this helps to develop peripheral vision. The better you get at looking at your opponent's eyes, the better your peripheral vision becomes. This, of course, helps the actor become more sensitive to what is surrounding them on stage. 

We start off with a basic choreographed cutting sword routine based on a series of attacks and defenses. The routine is designed to start the students moving together and they learn how to stretch their balance- that is, maintain balance while they lunge. Having mastered a sword fight in a basic style that is suitable for any weapon from a Viking sword to a U.S. Cavalry saber - that is, cuts and defenses with a long cutting weapon - we then add a dagger in the other hand. Then students repeat the basic routine but incorporate a dagger. Now they have to use both hands. 

After the simple sword and dagger work we teach a different set of moves that incorporates thrusts and cuts. As we go along we teach stage awareness, how to make the thrusts safe, whether they should be upstage or downstage, and how to move the body, all the while increasing the student's awareness of their center. But it all stems from the very first lesson of looking into each other's eyes and not at the weapons. 

Having accomplished a sword routine with Elizabethan sword and dagger, we then teach students how to disarm each other and add this to the fight routine. So they start with a simple sword and dagger fight, then one disarms the other of his dagger and ends up with two weapons against one. Then the other student is disarmed of their dagger and they go back to the basic routine they learned with just swords. 

Up till now students have been using large swords, which require what we call "in-distance" fighting. In­ distance means that I always thrust past your belly, not at you, while you step back or to the side as you naturally would if we were really fighting and the sword were coming at you. The audience doesn't see that the sword actually went past you. They see you withdraw and it looks to them as if I would have stabbed or cut you if you hadn't moved. The illusion of reality is created by your reaction, not just by my thrust. 

The next step is to teach eighteenth-century small sword fighting, which requires a completely different technique. These weapons are smaller and lighter and are more like modem fencing swords. Now we teach "out-of­ distance" fighting, which means that instead of thrusting past your body, the swords are thrust toward the body, but never come closer than eighteen inches. In-distance technique also creates the illusion that the sword would go through the body. Out-of-distance technique creates the illusion that the small sword thrust, which is always made toward the torso, is stopped by the opponent's sword. I teach both in- and out-distance techniques, whereas the traditional approach to sword fighting has emphasized the latter. 

Next we teach unarmed combat. Students learn how to roll, swing a punch, and take a slap, etc., without contact by the actors. For example, the noises of the slap can be made either by the deliverer or the receiver. We teach students how to safely throw someone over a table, like they do in cowboy movies. Even if an actor is never called upon to do this, being able to fling someone over a table builds confidence and gives a student the physical courage to try other things. 

What we are also trying to teach is a philosophical attitude, not just a technique. We teach theatricality based on reality. By that I mean that the actor should give the audience the impression that they are really trying to kill their opponent, and the opponent should respond as if their life were really in danger. One should always react truthfully. In this way the illusion of reality is created. Since the actor is moving realistically, we believe you don't necessarily have to add theatrical flourishes. It's truth first: move like a swordsman or deliver a punch as you would in reality. The tricks are how you hide it from the audience. 

I work with two associates, Rodney Cottier and Mike Loades. Together we teach stage combat at twelve drama schools. Of course, the three of us have slightly different styles, but we all believe in the same basic philosophy. Most of our students study stage combat for the first two years of their three-year course. At the end of the first year's training, students take an exam that is set by the Society of British Fight Directors. If they can perform a fight scene that includes a rapier/dagger fight, a small sword fight , and an unarmed combat sequence all at performance pitch, they receive a certificate. They can then choose to train an additional year to develop their skills with different weapons and learn how to choreograph themselves. LAMDA also has a one-year course for over­ seas students that includes an intensive course in stage combat, and they take the same exam as well. 

At LAM DA we have also started to teach students archery and horseback riding. The training is for theatrical purposes. It helps them overcome any fear they might have and teaches them the different styles of riding. It also helps them learn how to deliver lines on horseback, which they might be asked to do in film. 

Although all stage combat is choreographed, there is a certain spontaneity at the end of training when good students can create their own moves, when they know how a sequence should progress logically. It is very exciting when students can do this. They are young and are not yet locked into patterns. My work is then fed and enlarged by watching them create their own moves. I am constantly learning from them.

How Do You Work with Actors in a Production? 

How I choreograph a fight will be based on the director's interpretation of the characters. I use my knowledge of the period and weapons and build around what the director wants. My only preconceived ideas are of the shape of the period and how the weapons were used. Then I ask the actor how they see their character and build around that. The fighting style must reflect the character's behavior and motivation, as well as each particular actor's body. I also try to help the actor understand why one particular thrust or blow is stronger or more appropriate than another. For example, the reason Mercutio challenges Tybalt is that he feels ashamed because Romeo won't respond to Tybalt's provocations; he challenges Tybalt in order to get rid of this shame. So it's probably not an all out aggressive challenge, but rather more of a defiant one. Therefore, in the fight Mercutio might not move in too closely or aggressively on Tybalt. He might approach it more as a contest than a blood feud. 

When I work with actors I first ask them to read the scene for me and from that I can tell how they view their character. Then I ask them to try certain moves and incorporate what they think they should be doing with my understanding of the weapons and the period. 

How Do You Incorporate Acting Techniques into Your Stage Combat Course? 

It's a question of motivation. When a student is learning a routine for the first time, I ask them to think of why their opponent might make a specific move. Have you over­ extended? Has your opponent seen an opening? Are they trying to kill you? When they try to kill you are you expecting it or are you caught unawares? Perhaps you have been caught because your aggression carried you too far or made you back off a bit more than you should have. Those are simple instinctive reactions that are often missing in worked-out routines because the actors have come to believe their fighting is safe. And it's never safe - even when it's choreographed. They must never believe it is safe because then it's not real. You must always jump back as if someone were trying to cut you in half. The audience's belief hinges on your reaction. 

Recently a student mentioned that they had seen a particular production that had some very elaborate sword fights. I asked them if they believed the characters were trying to kill each other. They thought for a moment and said, "It was very clever, but no, I didn't." That's the complete opposite of what we teach.

A prod in the right direction

Having recently read a post on Rory Millers blog about how he had changed the way he used his blog, moving from a place to put thoughts in to words and then to something where he was trying to present a more polished end result and now deciding to go back to the original intent....
This has prompted me to reconsider my blogs and ans how I post on them as ready Rory's post made me realise I had been doing something similar, waiting to get it just right but then ending up not posting most things...

So hopefully I will be posting more often.

Tactics of female aggression/violnce

an interesting read....
Tactics of female aggression

Sustaining the myth or finding something "new"

First up I need to say, I know;
"Stage Combat" is not real combat or violence
"Stage Combat" or the other names it gets given, is a form of artistic expression and a way to portray a narrative or ideas.

That said, I personally find it tiring when I see again and again combat used to do the same things over and over again. It feeds off itself, the inspiration comes from other stage fights and stage fighting ideas, be they from movies or stage combat videos etc. The sustaining of certain moves or actions that one sees again and again, because they look cool etc. reinforces ideas that these are the things that should be in fights, and that they can work in reality and this is real! Yet it seems that no one is questioning why one is doing them.
Or we see moves done because they can be made to work and they look cool! A kick makes contact, the person receives it flies backward with a back flip! Why? because they can do a back flip and it will make the kick look really powerful and it will be cool!

Now I have done things that look cool, have gotten people who can do acrobatics to include them in the fight. But in these cases one has to do it in a way that first can it actually work, following the Principles? Can it be done to enhance the "Reality" of the fight? Only then can we go to... and it looks cool!
Otherwise We have a situation where we go wow! I didn't believe that those characters would have done that in that situation... but it LOOKED COOL!
One can also make the argument  that when one is training someone one is getting them to expand their range but to also improve their confidence by using things they know, learning how to use misdirection etc. and if it fits within the Reality of the story

Our belief is that stage combat should be used to give an insight in to what real violence and aggression can be about, at leas in the context of what the story over all is trying to portray. Of course as mentioned it will never be it, but at least it can go some way to challenging the typical clichés and myths about the subject and which are sustained by the continual reuse of them in narrative combat.

A kick to someone in the stomach doesn't provide the physics to make them do a back flip, (I saw this recently in a filmed fight) and when we see the back flip we don't want to see the actor "do" the preparatory set/off for a gymnastic back flip, it needs to have a logic, and to be hidden or we need to be misdirected and the action/reaction/response needs to have a logic to it based in what we and the audience understand from our own experience.

I don't like Crouching Tiger etc. because when I see people run up bamboo or across water, I can not forget they are one wires, the sense of wieght and gravity is wrong, where as when I see Jacky Chan run up something, I believe it, because it look "real" though of course in case that is because it is real!

So consider using stage combat look at what the real violence and the threat fo it would do to the characters and how it would make them feel, think, act and "fight". Otherwise you can be short changing the audience or outright deceiving them, and they won'y even know it... but worse... neither will you!

Also they may not appreciate the difference... until they see it, of course they then may not like it anyway or prefer the old ways, but at least you have given them something to compare the old ways with...

Talent hard work and time spent

Hard work trumps talent until talent starts working hard....

There is a lot of value in this saying, though as with all such bite size summations, it isn't completely true nor does it cover all the aspects that going to making it have some validity.

Having just had a students go through a combat assessment, the above is generally true, those that have applied themselves to a greater level generally do better, though not always.

However one can also see that those that have the opportunity to spend a greater period of time working on the skills do better than those that have not. Those that have only had 1 1/2 at best to work on the subject don't do as well as those that have had 2 terms. That of itself is not to do with the actual hours involved. I can't say for 100% certain but the hours actually spent on the subject could work out about the same but those who have had a longer time period to assimilate the skills do seem to do better.

We say that little and often is the best approach to training and that trying to cram at the last minute doesn't really work. The faster you push it in the faster it comes flying out, and the body will not trust skills that have only been recently developed, rather than ones that have been growing over a longer time.

My point is that when looking at sound bites there is always more to consider... and the longer a period of time that one spends often the better one can do...

Best