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

Confidence, Trust and Dependance

Confidence is a word that gets used a lot stage combat and especially in acting.
The idea of trusting fellow actors, so as to let the best working partnerships to develop etc. Whatever one thinks about this, I honestly don't believe that most actors find this level of rapport with other actors, if they do it happens with specific people and/or over a long time .
However acting is a collaborative effort, I know stage combat is to. however if someone screws up in a piece of physical work, especially a fight, there can be more serious results than "the scene doesn't work".

So trust? Trust, trust in what? If someone is attacking me, they should be doing so with some layers built in to make sure that if I fail to do what is necessary, they will not hit me.
Do I trust them to do so? No! What I should have is confidence that they are going to do all they can can to insure it is done properly. When they attack me, there are certain things I should do to for my own safety. Do they trust me to do those things? No! However they should have confidence that I will be endeavouring to do all those things.

So we shouldn't trust anyone?!? Well yes and no. I should trust in my ability to the appropriate things based on the situation. I should have developed my skill to a level where I am confident that I have layers built in so that if something is off there are others to insure the actions are done safely, even if I or my partner/s screw up in some way, that I have the control to modify or change my action to insure that and/or that we are doing the actions at a pace where we can control the flow and movement.

Our issue is that when one considers trust and when this trust seems to be full filled then we start to become dependant on the "other" doing what needs to be done, we start to let our guard down and that is when things become dangerous because someone doesn't do what they should in the moment.

A common "trust" exercise done in acting classes is to fall backwards and have another or others catch you. Now I have heard of these things going wrong, the person being caught getting whip lash etc. so even when it works from one angle it may not be from another. However it is a) an extreme example, you are really wholly at the mercy of the person/people catching. There are few times in my opinion when you are this much at the mercy of others in a "real" situation. b) the situation is set up to push a boundary, but it generally can be done in a very controlled way, there is little chance of things going wrong. As such it would in most cases be as hard for someone to fall backward on to a crash mat. As such it is wrongly labelled a trust exercise in my opinion, really it is a letting go exercise.

Trust is something that is built up over time and through developing of confidence in all involved, including one self . When a dancer for example, literally takes a leap of faith to be caught by another/s they will do so with more surety after a large number of repetitions, where things have not gone wrong, than they will on the first couple of attempts, even with people they know.

However, even then I should not recommend whole dependence, both parties should maintain awareness so that if things change they have the opportunity to modify the behaviour, to catch themselves or tuck and roll, have the confidence and the trust that they can look after themselves as and when it goes wrong.

Otherwise we would be left with what I would is an untenable situation. Do you as a river going out on a journey on the road, trust all the other road users around you? Do you depend on everyone else doing exactly as they should? Or rather do you maintain your level of awareness and your skills to make sure that you keep yourself and those around you as safe as possible.

Master at Arms

I was reading the BADC paper work and see that I am officially able to call myself a BADC Master at Arms! The top teaching title in the organisation...

La de da me! ;)

Worlds Conferance

I have become involved in a meeting that intends to discuss bringing a recognition and a form of unity across the certification of the major Stage Combat organisations around the world.

 

Representatives from the BADC(UK), SAFD (USA), FDC (Canada), NSFS (Scandinavia), and SAFDi (Australia), There are a couple of independent representatives, of which I am one.

 

The exact details are to be ironed out during this coming meeting.

 

My hope is that this will lead to recognition, officially, between the organisations when students have been

certified and then take that certification  to another country and wish to continue training.

 

This is an issue that students of ours have had in the past, having trained with us and been certified by the BADC they return to their home country and wish to continue to training. However they then find that they are expected to only only recertify in weapons they have already done but also go through the minimum hours of training with those weapons. In some countries they expect you to go through 30 hours for each weapon.

 

This makes no sense to me, someone who has already trained with a weapon and been tested it, is expected to spend 30 hours with a weapons they have already done exactly the same as someone who has never handled the weapon before.

 

That is a baseline. I can understand that on a case by case basis, some people will need more training especially when they have achieved a low grade level in in the training, but to make it a blanket necessity and requirement makes no sense to me.

 

On a related theme, a minimum of 30 hours per weapon before you can go in for certification?! An advanced process of 5 weapons? 150 hours. How many hours do most people get to train a week? 1 1/2 a week? That's 100 weeks! 2 closer though with breaks etc, closer to 3 years. Now we aren't talking about a martial art, we are talking about a performance skill. Not including the time that would have been spent on the level 1 exam, around 3 weapons, or level 2 weapons, and other 3.

 

Again this doesn't make sense to me. Teaching a Principle based system then improvement in one element or style, should improve the skills and competence in another, so in general the more training one does the quicker and more proficient one should become with newer styles.

 

It occurs to me that the minimum requirement for the hours in organisations that have no grading system in their certification process. With grades you can show the "skill" demonstrated in the exam. Without a stratified level system, the mandatory hours goes someway to insuring that everyone one is at a standard.

 

Anyway we will see what happens and I'll keep you posted.  

Richard III

FInished the London rehearsals of the fight for Richard III last week. Everything has shifted to New York for the tech'.
It was good to work with Mark Rylance and Tim Carroll again, last time was Richard II, also good to work with Kurt Egyiawan for the first time since he left Guildhall a couple of years ago.

New Year....

The new academic year has begun, met all the new students now or at least the ones that we will teach on a regular basis. All seem nice and by and large a little older/more mature.
Looks like it will be a good year ahead....

Also coming at the work in a slightly different way. Looking at making more rounded basis in technique before teaching/developing set forms to the students.

This has partly been due to an ongoing observation that despite all the success that we have had in getting more students through the combat exams and achieving higher grades. However when working with people in final year shows etc. we have noticed gaps in their skills and understanding. The things that they need to be able to use when they are using their skills in the ultimate task, performing on stage and developing the scenes etc. needs to be stronger.

So we have been looking at ways to change our approach to how we parcel the work for the students. Of course the Principles stay the same and some students a harder to teach or uncommitted regardless of how we parcel the information. However the goal is always the same, make the students the best they can be in the time we have them for.

Violence designer!

Came across that title reading a blog, by a self titled Violence Designer
It is hard to find a name for what we do. We know what a set designer does, lighting designer, movement director, voice coach, whatever. But for what we do it's not so easy. It's not so specific. Fight choreographer, Fight Co-ordinator,  Fight Director, action co-ordinator now Violence Designer!
Why is it so hard to give ourselves a name that sums up what we do and that everyone can understand?

Well first up have you looked at how broad a subject human violence and aggression is? The range of uses it is put to? How it is modified by culture, era, context within both of those. You need to understand the effects of clothing, armour, footwear, etiquette, general history and military history.

Then you have to understand the mechanics of the different kinds of violence, whether unarmed or armed. Body mechanics are the same for the human body around the world, but there are still many different paths to the same goal, and humans have come up with different ways of doing violence, even though much of those differences are in the packaging. Different era's favoured different kinds of violence over others, used different kinds of weapons in different ways or the same kinds of weapons in different ways, Give me a rapier fight! Well are they really using a rapier (define a rapier exacaly) What country? Italian, German, French, Spanish, English, Danish? What style in that country? There could be different styles in the same place at the same time? Note that the reasons for choosing a specific weapon more often have less to do with how effective it is for killing people and more to do with fashion, society or even things like how well does it match my outfit! A proviso, no weapon is ineffective as killing or maiming etc, however they are often only effective in a narrow range of circumstances.

Then we have to be able to all of this in a "theatrical" context, understand what is required of telling a story, to an audience on stage or through a camera. We need to be able to transmit that to actors. Actors who may not have training, or confidence in what training they or they may not have confidence in themselves, or the people they are working with.

We'll need to understand and work out and get people to trip and fall  and how it actually happens, get pushed and shoved and to do that to others. Get whipped, strangled with rope, hung, work out a rape a groping and all that as well as then get someone to have a fight! How to throw a punch, block one, take one and react appropriately to all the different things that could happen. Hide the tricks, sell the knaps. Tell someone how to react to poison, or what it might feel like to be punch or stabbed in the kidney as opposed say to the liver!
We have to fit the violence and action on to a stage, around a set, work with lights

What about where the fight comes from? The actors and director will have normally gone up to where the violence happens, maybe dipped their toes into the violence and then confidently moved on after. The problem is that actors and directors like most people don't actually have knowledge about the whys and wherefores of actual violence and aggression, how it develops, what really happens and the aftermath. SO we have to direct the lead up, the aggression and violence it self and the immediate aftermath and advise on the long term impact. After all if you don't set the whole context appropriately, then all that flows from and through it won't be appropriate. So we have to direct the story before during and after the aggression and violence that "we are there for". Oh and we have to do all that without rocking the boat, stepping on anyone's toes and keeping the actors and director happy and ego un-bruised
.
Of course we have also at the same time got to understand and consider and be able to to apply the sense of what the violence is part of and how it needs to serve the story.

Are we looking for the actuality of the violence and aggression? The reality? What is the reality of the story and the actuality of the time. The actuality of Shakespeare's play and what he wrote it for. R and J great... Elizabethan England! Whose? The actual Elizabethan England form 30 years plus of personal research and all that one has learnt from others who have studied it? The Reality to actors or the director? Or the reality of an audience?? Oh but wait, we are setting it in 1930 prohibition Chicago, that's our reality....

Or are we looking for Theatricality. Well "we" don't do theatricality! ;) At least not for its own sake. It's there if it suits the reality of the production. Of course there is the theatricality of eight performances a week for run lasting several months or multiple takes for a camera, and all of which have to be as safe and as well performed as every other!

SO! How do we come up with a job title that describe all that! In TWO words! ;) Answers on a postcard to.... OK Good luck and .... GO.

Now to be clear, I don't think there is one that sums it all up... Aggression and Violence, doesn't sum it all up, hell it doesn't even sum up what violence and aggression is, let alone everything thing we do. The technical crew and designers do technical stuff, the things the actor can't do while acting. The Directorial crew, Director, voice, movement choreographer etc. guide or tell the actors what to do. OR guide them in doing something they can already do and/or already understand. But we sit somewhere in the middle, where we are dealing with things outside of the actors control or knowledge and skills. while at the same time guiding them to do that through things they can already do. All the while in a story which isn't ours, being on the fringes of the production, coming on odd occasions to get people to naturally tell someone else's story.

So what will I call what I do when I am working in a play or for camera based story telling... I shall keep using Fight Director. People understand what it, or as much as anything else, it is an accepted term and of all the terms used it gets the closest for me, to what the job means.

Personally Violence Designer doesn't do it for me. Yeah the Violence OK I can get that part partly. Designer? Not so sure. Yes I can design the violence, but I don't see that as the job. Designer implies that I create the violence, and also that what I am designing is a construct of mine not something that it natural, normal and part of all of us. That's why direction still works for me. I direct the violence and the aggression like the director works with the rest of the play... when the action becomes physical I don't design it, I direct the actors to do things they can already do or at least direct them to adapting what they can do and make it more appropriate, safer etc.

My reason for not really liking the Violence part is that yes violence is part of it. But where does violence come from? Violence does just happen suddenly, it is part of a continuum of other activities most of which are viewed as normal, that leads to violence when certain of those aspects are mixed together in certain ways. "Violence" might be a better a description than "Fight" but it still doesn't cover everything by a long way. Is helping an actor to faint safely on stage Violence Design or what ever name we give it?
So I don't really like any of the names we have, but when you use them people understand what it means or at least most of it. Why change the name to something that is only marginally better and that has the down sides of being incomplete still and people don't know what it means!
I'll be sticking with Fight Director.