DZ-100: Scenes through Swords — Transcript

Hi I'm Chas Fisher and welcome to Draft Zero, a podcast where usually two aspiring filmmakers try to work out what makes great screenplays work. However today we have two sword fighters working out what scene work tools can be learned from martial arts in particular sword fighting. This is going to be an unusual episode of draft zero especially for a hundredth episode but I guess that's also incredibly on brand for you know how we don't really plan ahead a lot and just wing it but this unusual episode exists due to the fact that Stu was called quite urgently to a shoot on the other side of the planet and I personally am trying to deliver on two script deadlines. So first of all thank you to our amazing patrons who bring you more Draft Zero more often and they definitely brought you this one and also thanks to Stu and Damon Young, Philosopher Swordsman, who just happened to have recorded this episode before the urgent call to the other side of the planet came in and we are very lucky that that happened. Now before everyone who hears sword fighting in tunes out I listen to this having not been part of the recording I am just here for this intro and an outro and I actually learnt an incredible amount not just about sword fighting but how to approach scenes. For example I'm just going to give you my key takeaway from listening to Stu and Damon's conversation. They discussed the concept of measure which and I could be completely wrong here but my understanding from how they talk about it is the distance between the two fighters in particular whether you are within striking distance of one fighter or another. And Stu and Damon raised the idea of what if you use that as a metaphor or they apply that concept to emotional distance what is the emotional measure between two characters in a scene in conflict. You know who is vulnerable to the other what kinds of attacks work on them emotionally who chooses to engage first who could. Faint who could lead with their chin as it were who could leave themselves vulnerable in order to lure an attack from the other person. And that was just on the concept of emotional measures you and Damon get into a whole lot of different concepts that I will be applying to my scenes. forthwith. Enjoy.

I'm Stu Willis and in this episode we've got a very special guest star Damon Young who you may have heard very briefly in our episode on the differences between choices and decisions and how that impacts your character and Damon's agreed to to join us to discuss the interrelationship between historical European martial arts and writing we'll see where it goes it's a general purpose discussion welcome to the show Damon.

Thank you.

So Damon is a philosopher who I think very importantly for this has written a book on martial arts and was it the philosophy of martial arts.

Yeah I edited two collections on philosophy of the martial arts one that's for like a general audience which is called beating and nothingness and one that's called engagement which is more for philosophers and scholars.

Yeah and you also wrote an article I remember I was sent it but it's what put you on my radar a friend of mine sent an article that you had written on like the love of the sword.

Yeah that's right yeah because I you know it's it's a it's a backup weapon historically you know it isn't necessarily a main weapon if you want to survive on the battlefield it might be way more useful to have you know a spear or a bow and yet for some reason it's the sword that is sort of celebrated and sometimes you know, almost worshipped by whole peoples as this symbol of martial virtue and other kinds of virtue. And I was like, well, what's the deal? You know, why are swords so cool?

And is that what led you to start studying HEMA? Just the interest in swords?

It's a sort of dual interest in- Ah, pun intended. Thank you. In craft. You know, I'm really interested in crafts, in the way we move from little bits of knowledge that we have to work through painstakingly one step at a time to a more fluid knowledge that we can deploy on the fly, as it were. So, that kind of process really fascinates me, whether you're talking about whittling or writing or fighting or dancing.

I was going to say it sounds very similar to writing.

Yeah, exactly. But I'm also super interested in martial arts in general, and I'd never done really any proper weapons training. And I started off thinking, you know, I wonder what it'd be like to learn knife fighting. And I called up the chap who became my teacher, Stephen Hand, and said, hey, do you teach knife fighting? And he said, no, but we teach sword fighting. And I thought, well, heck, I'll give that a go. So, I did and loved it.

Have you done any dagger fighting? Because we're doing dagger fighting at the moment.

No, I haven't.

Oh, it's very interesting.

I find knives absolutely terrifying and, you know, I think it might be a great kind of hair of the dog experience to do some knife fighting. And I also think in my fiction, that would be a really interesting skill to have because I don't have an embodied sense of how knives work. You know, I have friends who were stabbed when we were teenagers. Oh, wow.

Okay.

But I don't have any working knowledge of what to do with knives, other than the nonsense I was taught in karate. So, I would love to learn, but no, I'm just more familiar with big knives.

Yeah. As one of my friends says, stick is stick. It's, you know, whether it's a big stick or a small stick, they're still fundamentally kind of sticks. But I think what's interesting about the knife fighting thing, and I think it will bring into why I was interested in having this discussion, is that the dagger fighting is very connected to kind of wrestling, right? Yes. It's very fast and it kind of brings up the idea of something that comes up a lot in martial arts, which is distance or measure between opponents. The reason I was interested in having this discussion is I do quite a bit of sparring and, you know, I go to HEMA tournaments, sword fighting tournaments, and there's these principles that we learn in terms of dueling that feel to me really appropriate to thinking about combative character dynamics. So, you know, two characters in a form of kind of opposition with each other, you know, that these ideas, I'm finding them really useful to think about how characters engage in scenes where they want something and someone else wants to stop them from getting it, and or want something in return, but it's not a negotiation. So it's a lot more directly compatible. Does that make sense?

It does make sense. Although I would add, even in a negotiation. So, you were talking about measure, for example, and two people can be talking at cross purposes. Their words can be completely irrelevant to each other. In a way, it's like they're out of distance. They can't cause any harm to each other. They can't give or take anything away from one another. only when they move into measure. That there's danger there. And similarly, if you're having a negotiation with someone, it's only when you start pulling out the nasty stuff. It's only when the stakes are suddenly high that it matters what you say. So, there are definitely parallels there. There's definitely a sense of someone who's good at negotiating or good at arguing or good at fighting has to know when they're in danger and when they're not.

I like that idea because it's almost like you have to be in the same with someone right to kind of get to this level of conflict that we're talking about but even then there is kind of like a sense of emotional distance you kind of have to be because the thing with measure the reason it's so important is when you get into measure like the height disparity with people does make a difference in combat.

A hundred percent.

But the point is, swords are about kind of changing that dynamic, right, and actually kind of levelling the playoff field, so strength is less of an issue. And it's like you become vulnerable, right, when you approach someone into distance. The chances are, unless you're very, very good at measure, you will make yourself vulnerable.

Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. And that's one of the reasons why, you know, daggers are mutually dangerous because you're in grappling range. You're in the most intimate range in order to do any work with a dagger. You know, the closer you get, the number of dangers increases. You know, whereas with a sword, you might be in sword range, but you can't necessarily come to grips. It's a different kind of intimacy. And yeah, I think that does parallel all kinds of commitments, all kinds of emotional involvements that, you know, sure, you can keep yourself safe, you can keep well out of measure, But you won't be able to do anything either.

Yeah and that kind of brings up this idea that I mentioned in the previous episode which is the idea of the initiator. Now the school I train at is in the Italian school of fighting starting with Fiore. So some of the terminology, one I'm going to push the terminology anyway I'm not great at the HEMA scholarship. But we got slightly because you're more in the English side or are you German?

That's right. Yeah, I've done some Italian rapier fencing, and I've done, you know, I've learned, I suppose you call it German, at the point where 133 sword and buckler meets silver, you know, because there are some common principles there. But yeah, I'm definitely more familiar with English. Yeah.

And there's definitely some interesting stuff in there when we get to it about, like, how you need to prove yourself. What was it, fighting in the four arenas? Anyway, if we get to it, it's good. So we talked about this idea of the initiator is perhaps being better terminology than and then a protagonist particularly in on a scene level right that if you've got someone entering a scene with with something that they want and someone else want something but until a character actually takes action you don't have a scene. So as much in like dueling as you've- you might present what we call an opening or an opportunity to your opponent which is the idea of like you basically show them where your weakness is in order to lure them in, I guess, right? So and then you- in a way that you can control. You hit me on this side, you know, I will show you my right shoulder to make you go for my right shoulder because I feel like I can control it. Until someone actually takes advantage of that opening, nothing happens, right? And I feel like that's true of scenes, right? As much as people can be really smart, someone actually has to initiate the scene and make the fight, for lack of a better word, happen, right? So, often in drills, we talk about the agent and the patient. You need both for the drill to work. So, you need someone to take the agent, create the action, and someone needs to wait for the action to happen. But if you've got two patients, nothing happens. But interestingly, if you get two agents, you enter in- and I'm, again, going to butcher the terminology. I think the Germans call it Krieg, have you heard that term? Which is like basically we all, you come in with a plan, you both go at each other, but the plans mean that there's not a clear winner. I'm not articulating that very well. But the idea is you got both characters or agents come in with a plan, and the plan doesn't work. And they're suddenly in a completely new situation where they kind of have to find what works. I guess the negotiation is an interesting metaphor there, because not all- You know, I don't fight people to kill them, right? Ultimately, everything that I'm doing is kind of a negotiation, but what I'm trying to negotiate in a sparring situation is to not lose. Yeah.

Yeah. I think the important thing there is that, So, the terminology is agent and patient-agent.

Ah, okay. Interesting. Okay.

So, you've got two agents, but one of them, the patient-agent is the one who receives. And I haven't looked up the etymology, but it may have something to do with the other use of the word patient, which is someone who is subject to medicine. So, you are a patient insofar as you accept or endure or, you know, something is done to you. So, yeah, the job of the patient agent is to accept the attack and then do something with it. And, you know, it's built into your definition that you are dependent on this other person acting for you to act. So the whole thing is prefaced on trust and cooperation, which is really important. So there's danger there, but there's also trust there, which is one of the hallmarks of martial arts when they work Well, but I would also imagine it's central to all kinds of creative activities, whether you're writing together or acting together or whatever it is.

And what about like two characters in a situation? Can we think of like, I guess one being the patient agent, that this idea that I'm going to wait until someone does something. Yeah. Right? What character is in them choosing to do that so there are a lot of people that we all take advantage of that that will wait under someone act so they can riposte and counterattack so basically so they can kind of parry, the sort of way deflect the attack and stab their opponent right so it can be a lot of people that kind of sit in a more defensive posture right and wait for someone to to to come at them because they're very comfortable with being defensive. Right and I think there are characters that in certain situations will choose to be defensive and some people that need to choose to be offensive you know I have found that not always. But I'll you know I'm not tall right I'm I'm like. 5 foot 7 on a good day and there are a lot of people that I fight that I like 6 foot right and I found that sometimes like I will get stuck in what I call very not correct terminology the death donut. Right which basically means that I am within striking distance for them because they are taller but I am not in strike like I can't do much to hurt them right so I actually need to kind of close the distance and get closer to them and if I actually do that quite if I actually open quite aggressively to someone who again someone who's taller it often catches them off guard because I think they're so used to having the natural advantage of being tall. That it's kind of can be like oh hang on where is this coming from of course quite quickly in that situation can change because in tournament situations we often do multiple passes right just very different from a dueling contest. Which is you know literally you just hit the person once. Yes. I like the sports context and then you can see that the game will slightly evolve unless you keep them on their toes it's kind of like a guess of rock scissors paper situation do you go aggressive or do you stay in steel or do you actually withdraw. I guess. Yeah.

And it also, it depends on... Yeah, firstly, who you're fighting, or in the case of a story, who your antagonist is, who is the other person who wants something that you also want, or who is an obstacle to you getting what you need or think you need. And that's partly to do with personality, partly to do with your circumstances. As you said, you might be shorter. There might be people who are naturally more aggressive, who are much more comfortable going for it. But again, there are circumstances in which that actually will work against them and they need to learn to be patient. They need to have that resolve to just sit and wait. And certainly in my experience, sometimes it feels more comfortable for me to act. It gets rid of the sort of dramatic tension, if you will, that I'm feeling. I can't stand it anymore. I have to do something and then I fail. What I need to do is just ease into the situation. You know, I don't think of myself as being very defensive here. It's an almost a kind of aggressive waiting, if that makes sense. So whoever has the kind of nerve to live with that tension long enough will be the one who wins. So that, you know, so there are circumstances, for example, when I am absolutely waiting for a taller person to cut down at me from above and what I'm going to do when they do that is I'm going to very quickly snipe at the underside of their arm. Quicker than they can cut at me and then I'm going to get out of there as quickly as I can, which is a classic George Silver English broadsword principle, strike and fly out. But at the same time, I am there knowing that I'm waiting for someone to hit me on the top of the head. And that creates a tension that I really don't like, and I want to do away with it. It would be more comfortable for me to just rush in and get smacked in the skull than it is to sit there and wait and actually get the win, get the point. Surely that has parallels with the kinds of resolve and other character traits that are required in a scene. It's a great character beat to have someone who is impatient, foolhardy, furious, angry, slighted, to show them really wanting to act. Just, they have to just do something, but what they actually have to do is wait. And they hate it. And that's a nice little- Yeah. That's a nice way to develop character.

And also the idea of kind of like sniping, like attacking and getting out. So, waiting for someone to do something, you respond and then you withdraw as quickly as possible. Like metaphorically you can use this in kind of like a verbal sparring match right and you could potentially in the blocking as well show the character quite deliberately withdrawing like they've made their accusation and then kind of withdrawn into a different part of the room right you could definitely see that dynamic working on on stage do you does silver have much terminology around like talking about like the game of like like in a dual situation like that you've got to work out what your opponent's game is?

Not that I remember. A lot of his terminology is about timing and measure. He's extremely good on that, on having a sense of when you're presenting a threat to the opponent and when you're presenting a target. That's one of the key distinctions of silver is you must present a threat. Because if you present a target, you're in false time, you know. So, the classic thing is you rush at your opponent, but you're leading with your face or your chest instead of with your sword. So, you're just going to get hit. You're out of time.

Yeah, okay. So, he sees that as a tempo thing.

Yeah, it's true time versus false time, and it's a basic principle in Silver. And I do, I think that, you know, in terms of thinking about a scene, again, timing is so important. So there's this notion in Greek culture and philosophy, ancient Greece, that is called kairos or kairos, which essentially means the right time. And the right time is different to sort of chronological time, clock time, ticking time. right time is a kind of felt sense for the right moment. And you can't know ahead of time when that will be. You can't assign a clock time to it. You just have to wait until you know it's right. It's a kind of more organic time. You know, it's a ripeness and you have to be attuned to the situation. So, as I was talking about before, in that situation where I'm just sitting there waiting for someone to hit me across the head, what I'm waiting for is exactly the right moment to strike the underside of that arm, which means not responding to feints, not being distracted by the way we're circling around or whatever it is, not being distracted by my own anxiety as I wait there.

Oh, yeah.

And just sort of say, OK, now strike, fly out. And that scene in The Devil Wears Prada where the character that, you know, the new girl, I can't remember her name, Anne Hathaway's character, is sitting watching them choose clothes, choose a belt, and she's just there kind of sniggering and smiling, and none of them says anything. And then at just the right moment after her little snigger, Meryl Streep brings out that gorgeous monologue that just destroys her, undermines her credibility, humiliates her and gives her the opportunity to learn something.

I think it's actually a really good metaphor for me or a way of thinking about these things because we're working on an ensemble script at the moment and there's it's really tempting to be like oh this character only has one line of dialogue right I need to give them more words but a well placed word or I mean in this case it was a you know Miranda's monologue. That may actually have more impact in the same in the audience reaction to the same in a character who's who's kind of talking a lot which is giving a flurry of blow. I look a flurry of blows talking like is a strategy right it forces people back it gives you control over positioning you're actually trying to make it really hard for them to find an opening that there's someone who's capable of taking that who is a patient agent. Right they can find that right tempo and that can be quite devastating and I think it's probably I can't think of any of the top my head but I think you'll find in scenes that there are a lot of characters who have that devastating moment, you know one of the things I've looked at a lot is when Clarice meets Hannibal Lecter for the first time in silence of the lambs right and he is definitely someone who attacks a lot, She is very patient and then he's almost able how she's a more almost able to win that confrontation with him and get him on side.

I agree I agree I was I was thinking she does that partly by appealing to his vanity and his sense of intellectual superiority so she she doesn't need to go at him savagely or to hurl insults at him or whatever it might be she just. Bites her time and then gets what she wants from him at a great emotional cost of course but you know that's how heroes do things.

I mean I think it's it's interesting because one of the things I've discovered over the kind of the four years I've been doing famous so far is that when I was spying with people that. Were, you know, were fellow beginners, I couldn't really calibrate my skill to give them the kind of, their skill level plus one. And I remember one of the first people I used to train with, and he's now one of my teachers, which should say a lot, but I thought he was kind of at a similar level to me. And then I remember I was about to go to my first tournament and he's like, okay, do you want me to continue at the level we've been doing at? I mean, he could beat me consistently, but he never felt like a challenge. And he was like, oh, do you want me to actually, like turn it on to what you would will see in a few days like I turn it on and he wiped the floor with me right he was good enough to be like my level plus one but he was kind of like in that place it wasn't a sparring situation where the job was for him to dominate me he was wanting me to learn something so he was good enough to be able to just do the kind of the plus one thing so it's that idea that not all of these situations need to be as you say tearing at each other That choosing to let the opponent into a target or appeal to their vanity or make them feel better can be the way of getting what you want within a character getting what they want within their scene but she's it's not like she's just blindly. As you use your terminology you know in false tempo and going in with her head first and making him destroy her because I don't think she would win him over by being so suicidal.

No I think that crude and vulgar and bit stupid.

So she has to be presenting enough of a challenge to flatter his ego and then kind of getting one good blow which I think she does when she kind of walks out I mean she is humiliated as well but she gets in enough good hits in there that he sees her as a worthy person to kind of intellectually spar with right.

Absolutely.

You know, and then he is kind of, I guess, when I think about the game is it's kind of working at what your opponent is good at or what they're bad at. There are very- there are people that is, as you mentioned, we've talked about like the tall thing. There are people that could be very light on their feet, moving back and forth. And this is probably true in all martial arts, right? That they've got a particular thing that they're good at and do it a lot. And so you have to work out, I think, on the fly in a fluid situation, whether you're going to make them adapt to what you do or you adapt to what they do, right? What it is we're actually doing here because if there's someone who is like coming in and making an attack and withdrawing you might have to be someone that presents a whole lot of a lot more opportunities right you might be like I'm going to present an opening or a target just out to convince you to come in closer but I will hopefully be better at the distance part of this situation so you just miss and then I'm able to I'm already ready to kind of charge you down in response you know seek the after blow, not that- Hopefully they haven't hit you, so it's not an after blow.

Yeah, that's absolutely something that I do. So, I have an intuitive sense of distance, right? I just- It probably comes from doing karate or some other thing, but I'm good with distance. That's one of the things I know I can work with. And so, one thing I can do is back off, seem defensive, give someone an opening and look for all the world like I'm about to get hit, but actually I'm just an inch, I'm an inch out of reach of the tip of your broadsword or whatever it is and now your sword's spent because you miss me and I can hit you, I can take my time and hit you however hard I like, wherever I want to in that particular tempo. Yeah. That's a good example, but not everyone is going to fall for that. If I'm fighting someone who is, you know, a counter-striker like me or a defensive fighter, I either have to get them riled up in order to get them to do that or I have to change my strategy because they're not going to attack me like that. They're going to play it cautious like I am. Just talking again about parallels with character, I don't know if you've watched the Clone Wars, the animated Disney series?

No.

OK, so look, it was a bit clunky to begin with, and it was very much aimed at kids. And some of the dialogue just did my head in. But the end of The Clone Wars actually has some of the most beautifully poignant character moments. And there is one scene that involves the final duel between Darth Maul and Obi Obi-Wan Kenobi and as you know Darth Maul killed Obi-Wan Kenobi's teacher, Darth Maul is a ferocious fighter, but he's emotionally stunted. He hasn't developed in, Whatever it is 50 years 40 years and he tries the same move that he did against Obi-Wan Kenobi is master all those years ago. And Obi-Wan Kenobi accepts it counters it kills him.

It's very simple I mean I have seen this and it's a super simple moment right.

It's a very simple moment, but the shock on Darth Maul's face, and they let the moment stand. It's completely silent, but it's also a really beautiful example of the idea that Obi-Wan Kenobi is an old man by this stage, but he's changed. He's adapted. He's learned things. He's lived. Darth Maul is still prosecuting his failures from decades ago, and he has not moved on. I was really surprised at the depth of that storytelling, because it, you know, it's absolutely a fight scene and it's absolutely, you know, an animated Star Wars story, but it's also a really beautifully done character moment for both of them. And they went at it hard and they didn't need to, I suppose, is the point. They, you know, they could have had any kind of flashy lightsaber battle, but they didn't. They went for a kind of simplicity that demonstrated character.

Which I like because there are definitely people who well one of the ideas that we talk about and I wonder if Silver talks about as well is like chasing the sword right don't chase the sword. Chasing a sword is something I think you see a little bit in films because ultimately chasing the sword is you you basically focus your energy on what their sword is doing rather than what their what the target is doing right so in a way like making in terms of like actual fight choreography not that this is a discussion about fight choreography but it, Part of the reason that we see a little bit of that flashiness and that those big movements is to make them read because the thing is it's all the micro positioning stuff that that makes it a difference but I think what makes that scene work with Duff Mill is he doesn't chase the sword. You know he literally just waits his moment doesn't do anything like chasing us all will give you those big like clash clash clash clash clash clash stuff and then here they've just done a simple repost and a parry repost right.

From memory when he does that Kenobi gets out of measure and just cut straight down through Darth Maul and through the staff.

Yeah goes goes direct which I think is a good kind of like I think there is a metaphor for how characters can interact we can have people that chase the sword and chasing the sword can be fun it's like when you when you when you were kids and I taught teen classes in in Hema right they often chase the sword because it's kind of fun like it is.

It goes clang.

It goes clang and it's kind of fun and and that's what we've seen people do but they don't actually try to go for to direct but also if your kids hitting each other with sticks you don't actually want to hit each other with sticks.

Not necessarily, no. Right.

Where it's a bit different when you're wearing kind of like the protective equipment. So, I think that's an interesting idea, that idea that you can have characters that chase the sword, that they sit there and engage in the verbal sparring. But there may need to be a situation where they need to actually back out of the verbal sparring or the argument and just go direct.

Yep. And there's also another principle which that reminds me of, and I need to say it now or I'll forget it. I think it was Takuan Soho, a Japanese swordsman who said, don't put your mind in your opponent's sword. Don't put your mind in your opponent's eyes. Don't put your mind in your opponent's feet. Don't put your mind anywhere, because the whole idea is to achieve a kind of intuitive, quickened gracefulness that attends to the situation and all that's going on, rather than being stuck in one particular place. And again, there's that wonderful character metaphor. Darth Maul was stuck on his tensions and conflicts from decades ago. And in any negotiation, in any argument, in any situation where you've got two characters who want something from each other or that the other's getting in the way of, you will have often something they can't get rid of, that they're stuck on, some kind of blockage, some sense that they're not quite attending to what they should be because their mind's on some grievance or some loss or some embarrassment or whatever it is. And it's that sense of what you should be trying to achieve is a kind of fluid mindlessness that responds to the situation.

But what's interesting is you can also exploit that, I think. I'm sure you've seen it too, but there's this particular fencer who... Teaches me small sword and he is- his background is in broadsword and backsword which is kind of the- we're talking in sword technology single-handed sword particularly with like the broadsword has got the hand protection right? You know a lot of what we think of the Scottish two-handed big clay maw thing is not really Scottish fencing. As someone who's actually got a montante which is like one of the- a proper great sword they're quite fundamentally different and that comes from I believe the Spain, the Spaniards learning how to deal with like larger armies anyway, he is interesting when you put it- . He does long sword as well and he's a good like if you're a good sword fighter you understand a lot of these principles but when he's under pressure, you see him actually kind of getting out of doing long sword and he kind of starts doing broad sword. Right so characters can be that kind of like fluid response in the moment does mean if you put them under pressure they will probably go back to what is their most comfortable situation that they're probably not even consciously aware of what are they most trained in or you know.

Absolutely yeah absolutely I agree.

And you can kind of push people into doing that there's one kind of last thing that you mentioned which is the I think you talk about the expired action or the exhaustion.

Are the spent the spent blade.

Yeah we talk about the action being exhausted but it's the same idea right so the spent blade from my understanding and you can correct me if I'm wrong is effectively that you do an action and it's completed and it has failed right and then it will actually take more tempo takes more time to kind of start a new action is that. That's right yeah that's right. And so that's when Capo Ferro is one of the sources that we use that talks about tempo and many in his idea of tempo is effectively attacking what during someone's movement or after their movement has been exhausted. Right but exhausted so that they will take more tempo for them to do something but I actually think that is a really useful idea in terms of a scene, The characters will do something and that action may flow into other actions and flow into other actions but they may become a moment when their choice of approach is exhausted they actually have to find and renew what they're about to do. And I think that is something that you can think about in a scene when these two characters are in whatever kind of competitive situation it is maybe that science of the lamb situation. It's a good one of seeing it and they have to get action is exhausted they have to change what they're doing to be successful or and that creates an opportunity for someone else to be like aha. Right you can't lure people into exhausting their action sometimes I mean that's kind of what you talking about with the slip right when you're saying that you're really good at measures to someone attacks you and you sleep out of it that helps them exhaust it that kind of means they exhaust their action right.

Absolutely yeah. it. And I'm taking advantage of the moment of that exhaustion when they have the least degrees of freedom. You know, it's going to take them so long to start again. They're already in distance because they've committed to their cut. Everything's going wrong for them. Do you know what I mean? Like their sword is as low as it can possibly be. They're going to have to pull it all the way back up and start again. And I'm close, you know, whereas my sword's right there and it's ready.

Yeah, does Silva talk much about commitment? Because it's that commitment thing, right? It's that balance between being not committed enough, so it doesn't work. But if you're overly committed, then someone can exploit that when it fails, right?

Yeah, I can't remember that exact point, but certainly he does talk about, you know, it's implicit in the notion of slipping back or voiding the strike, that you are helping someone overcommit themselves, basically.

Yeah and that could be something that you couldn't your characters can potentially exploit that a character goes too far with their commitment to something and that creates a kind of opportunity because I think maybe part of what I'm interested in these these dynamics of these scenes is making them dynamic because sometimes sword fights can and. Argument arguments you know in a broad sense between characters can come become just like one character bashing the other with the sword and not as dynamic and a great sword fight to be in and and to watch has that kind of like that sense of like a tennis rally right. Like it's a back and a forth and it kind of evolves and moves but then sometimes it needs something as simple as Obi-Wan stepping back and doing a direct attack to kind of finish it off.

Yeah, and I do think also that, you know, it depends on the kind of scene you're writing. So, something I'm writing at the moment, it involves two characters who are hopelessly outnumbered. And there is no way they can possibly prevail in this situation, which when you think of it is narratively pretty dull. So, a lot of the work in that scene is showing the ways in which they are actively responding to that. Even if it's their moods or their intentions or, you know, their lost opportunities or their grief or whatever it is, they have to be doing something, even though physically in that moment there's literally nothing they can do. And on screen, that often translates into the most generic tropes. Like, for example, someone is tied up. We just show them struggling because something has to happen. Whereas in fact if you were genuinely tied up. You would conserve your energy and struggle. And it would be obvious that you were tied up and there was nothing you can do. But the audience needs to see them responding to that situation. So, you know, similarly, when two two sword fighters, their swords clash, then there's a close up of their two faces close to each other. And they're like, is that their swords. But, of course, even the most beginning sword fighter knows that if someone's putting that pressure on your blade, that much pressure, you just roll with it, spin, you know, and cut them.

Yeah.

You know, you let them push your blade around and you just, you know, martially, that's terrible. But in terms of, you know, filmically, it makes sense.

Yeah. I mean, the only time it's kind of seen in a situation is like a really high bind, kind of like above the head and it's just before the grapple. And either you're going to go in for the grapple or you're going to push them away. I think the bind is interesting I like because I'm trying to work out in a narrative situation what would a bind be and and for me binds tend to come I don't know if you use that terminology and in silver but bind is basically when, 2 swords people like strike at each other and their swords cross in the middle and it's it's a fairly equal crossing right because there's a part of saw that's got a week and the strong for obvious reasons a strong and a weak will tend to have the advantage in the in the situation and that's not really a bind, because that will move into something else but a bind is roughly crossed in the middle and so I think there are situations where characters can end up in a bind that they literally strike at each other more or less at the same time, you can show in psychography but you can do it verbally as well and that creates a situation when they may have to decide to respond they either continue the engagement, very close which means in in metaphorical terms I guess they're kind of hurting each other emotionally or one of them has to back out because otherwise it gets very very messy.

Yeah, I agree. I think also in a really well-written conversation, for example, or whatever it is that's happening, it might even be a sex scene, whatever it is, in the bind, what happens is you become unusually sensitive to the pressure of the opponent's blade because you need to know, are they going to be weak, are they going to be strong, am I going to need to flow with it, or do I need to overpower them? Of them. And so you're constantly having a sense of... Of the force and direction of their blade. This, I think, for me, is really noticeable when you're doing rapier, because there's just constant engagement and disengagement of the blades. And so, similarly, I think in a narrative, in a scene, when two characters have come into that bind, they've gone at it hard against each other, then there's going to be these moments where they're feeling each other out and trying to get a sense of each other's intentions, and it's all going to be little subtle cues that give away whether they're going at this hard or soft. I, you know, I think that principle works quite well.

Yeah.

And also getting back to what you were saying earlier about the spent blade or the exhausted action, you know, there's that really commonly discussed principle in storytelling, which is the try fail cycle. You know, so your character tries to do something, fails and then tries to do something, fails and tries to do something and every time there's like this spiralling movement where they're learning a little bit. They're learning something about themselves or the situations and finally they succeed. Because if they just did it and succeeded, there'd be no story. So, you have to have these cycles of trying and failure. And that might be what they call a no but. So, you fail, but you get something else or it might be a yes and. So, yeah, you've succeeded and you've created a whole set of new problems.

Yeah I mean I was going to say it reminds me I like that the no but and the yes and reminds me of David Mamet's observation about the scene is over when the character is thwarted or is educated that another way exists. Nice. I feel like that is actually every kind of action fencing situation but it is like is what you're saying right either it just literally your action is exhausted right. And you you are thwarted or you can educate in another way exists which comes back to that buying thing where you feeling out each other right you not trying to push too hard but sometimes you push too hard and you can sometimes the terminology that we use, get I'm obviously not using any of the Italian is like a is is like a yield right so that when a character putting a little bit too much force on you so you actually turn your blade so they have seemingly have control over it. And but you're able to use their their momentum against them and stabbed. Yeah, exactly. That is, can create dangerous situations because you can create by turning your true edge to your false edge, often in a yield, means that you're in a weaker position. So you have to stab them and get out of there because otherwise they will turn on you.

Yes.

A character yielding is such a simple idea of how you could go, that's what they're doing at this moment. They're yielding, they're letting that person seemingly overpower them, order them to turn it around.

Yes.

Last thing to kind of bring us kind of full circle is I was thinking about intentionality and like first intention and second intention, because this kind of brings us to the stuff we're talking about initiating. Is there any kind of stuff in Civil War about intention like first intention and second intention and what you should do is the first intention and what you should do is the second intention.

Absolutely yeah so the at least as my teacher Stephen Hand discusses it one of the important things is that so the first intention is not false. The first intention is not fakery. So if your first intention, for example, is to hit someone with a straight oblique cut to the left side of their head, if they do not parry that or get out of the way, you should 100%, cut them on the left side of their head.

Yeah.

That is your first intention. If, however, they parry that, then your second intention should be to, you know, mouliné around their blade and cut them to the right side of the head. But in both cases, you need to be completely committed. And if you're not completely committed, your first intention's unlikely to work anyway, because they'll know. They'll know that it's a fake. They'll know that it's a feint and they won't respond accordingly.

Yes. And experienced fencers will recognise that. So, you kind of need to, is I guess what you're saying about Silver, present the threat.

Exactly. Yeah. You need to present a credible threat, and it should be so that if they do not properly defend against that, which is the difference between fighting, you know, a rank novice and someone who's more experienced, a rank novice may not even defend against that or they won't do it properly. And they'll just get hit in the head. Whereas as people get more experienced, they start to do the things you expect them to do, which is to parry properly or use timing and distance to get out of the way or whatever it is. Yeah. Which is, again, why sometimes fighting, you know, the least trained, completely clumsy, flailing opponents can be quite awkward because they will put themselves in extreme danger just to hurt you.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure Silva talks about that, right? Like, it hurts me, you know, that idea that you need to learn how to fight drunk people.

Yes, exactly. Yeah, and that's the principle of the, you know, sometimes the principle of the joker in Batman. What do you do when someone... Will put themselves at risk to harm you and the people you care about because he's you know quite happy to chase cars.

Yeah I do think that is such an interesting idea that as much as we talking about we talking about people who are kind of experienced on some level with fighting characters that are that have got some idea of how to get what they want but it's kind of interesting when, characters aren't particularly good at things or forced on their back foot to kind of work out a way that's that's not where they're comfortable with or they go back to their broadsword they get put in a situation, the pressure makes them go back to the kind of their more primitive way of acting this idea that characters are not always good at what they are. Right now.

Exactly. Yeah.

Right it's a certain kind of fiction heroic fiction where everyone is really unless you just killing a whole bunch of orcs and you kind of almost like Aragon is like super heroic but I think, those kinds of sword fights that are like messier I mean that's what I really liked about the last jewel I thought you've seen it the last you'll had the the kind of fighting in that was like gross.

Yeah absolutely because that's how you know you don't rise to your expectations you fall to your training and then under it.

Yeah, yeah, that is absolutely accurate. And I think the King as well. Have you seen the David Michaud? I actually thought the jewels in that were pretty indicative of the stuff that I understand as historically, I want to say accurate, but not historically inaccurate. They're more on the accurate spectrum, right? They've kind of got a messiness.

I think they conveyed the messiness of it and the horrible intimacy of it, You know, because in a lot of really bad sword fighting scenes, the hero has their arming sword or their long sword and they just cut through mail, cut through plate armor, cut through horses, cut through tanks because they're just so virtuous. Whereas in this case, you can't do a damn thing against plate armour. Unless you're face to face, you know, with a Rondell dagger pushing through the cracks and that's horrible. That is a horrible way to die. It's a horrible way to fight.

But it's such a good metaphor for like, like, if you think if you can write a scene between two characters that is really messy. And what did you how did you put it horribly intimate?

Yes, absolutely. Yeah, I agree. Think of a break-up scene that is not a, you know, a wholly rational summing up of the pros and cons of a relationship. It's petty, it's nasty, it's cruel, because these people are, as far as they see it, it's kind of fighting for survival.

Because you're not going to get through their metaphorical plate armour unless you're up really close and then you can just stab him with a dagger.

Yeah, yeah, exactly.

Have you done any kind of like one versus two or one versus three kind of combat situations? I know Silver does- I'm pretty sure Silver talks about some of those in the book, but- Yes, a couple.

I've done some in karate and I've done some in broadsword.

Yeah, because coming back to what you were saying about your characters being hopelessly outnumbered, what is interesting in those situations, having actually been in them, is I run- like, if you're the solo target, for lack of a better word, you run around so much because you're basically just trying to position yourself so it's one-on-one as much as possible, While also keeping an eye on your flanks and people coming from behind you right and it's such an interesting way because in a way when we write dialogue scenes and look maybe you you work in prose not in screenwriting so maybe your experience is different. Improves you generally only having two characters talk to each other at once right. 11 you know it's one on one very rarely do you get overlapping dialogue right unless you are in Sorkin. So it's kind of feels like it's more of that situation when a character is outnumbered they're going to be outnumbered they're going to try and one-on-one each person in turn. All right and just back the other person away so they can defeat the one person because if they can actually get one person down then it becomes just another jewel right does that make sense.

It does yeah and I think it the for me anyway the important thing there. Is trying to get to the kind of state of mind of that person who's outnumbered. And speaking purely from my own experience, both from having been in fights, real fights where I was outnumbered quite horribly.

Like I just drop that at the end.

But also in sparring, is that there was no heroic resolve to win. There was no sense that I could... You know, teach these people a lesson, either, you know, symbolically inspiring or for real, you know, on the street. What I wanted to do was stay upright and stay conscious. So it's not desperation, but it's a sense of the stakes. You know, it's an extremely humbling thing where you're like, OK, well, I might have all kinds of, you know, heroic ideas about what I can and can't do, but right now my job is to not go down. And that's it. The whole universe contracts into this one fairly ignoble ideal, which is stay on two legs and try to keep all of your limbs.

And look, it's a good reminder. I mean, it's awful that you're in that situation, but I think from a character point of view, it feels like coming back to that idea of sometimes Simplicity works better, you know, the direct attack, or in this case, the direct defence, I just need to stay upright, is all that you need for a character within that scene, right?

You know, the character work it does, it just kind of- . First of all, it shows your character's capacity to suffer, because that's essentially what it takes. It's your capacity to just endure being a thing to which things are done. You have to act, obviously, but you're on the back foot. And I suppose one thing you can demonstrate that is how much does that person want to live? And there are certainly scenes in films and television where the character work is showing the point at which someone gives up, the point at which someone realizes they're done and just crawls up into a ball and hopes it doesn't hurt it too much, which, you know, I think that's really important. That's it's where you the universe is too big and too powerful for you and you're finished. That's it. You had your shot. You know, it's a powerful point, but it's also a kind of abject, really harrowing thing to watch.

Yeah. Yeah.

The only thing I'd bring it back to is I spoke about trust earlier and that was taught, you know, that was the idea of what it That means to collaborate with others you're fighting, and we do that a lot in the fencing school, in the cell. There's another thing, and that is you need some recognition that you're both in a common the situation. And when you're fighting, and I imagine when you're dueling, the kind of the drama there, the character work there can sometimes be that one person doesn't yet know they're in that situation. They haven't realized. So I sometimes watch videos on YouTube of street fights and sometimes you can see that some of the people involved don't realize they're in a fight yet. And so, they're not yet ready to defend themselves and that's what gets them knocked out. That's what makes them, you know, and so the formal duel does a lot of that work for you. You know, you offer the duel. You say, you know, I demand satisfaction. Your seconds have to talk to each other. And so, you are socially and psychologically creating the circumstances in which your conflict is recognised, right? You both know why you're there.

And the parameters, the rules of it, you know. Exactly. The Mandalorians take off their jetpacks and put them down. Exactly.

Yeah, I love that stuff. So, whereas in some circumstances, in some stories, it's really fascinating to watch how maybe one of the characters doesn't really understand the situation they're in. They don't know they're in a negotiation. They don't realise they're actually in an argument. They're not aware they're being broken up with, or literally, they're not aware that they're in a fight. And it's watching how those different expectations are in conflict, not just the two people.

Yeah, it's them learning what game they're in, even if the game is a deadly game.

Exactly. Yeah. And that, you know, thrillers often do that a lot, where you've got your spy or your hitman, and they are used to this universe and then they're partnered with someone who's not. And that's like, you know, do you realise what happens if you make that phone call? They'll find us. They'll find us and I'll kill us. And the person's like, yeah, sure, of course, no worries. And of course, they make the phone call because it's not real to them yet. And that also adds to the narrative tension.

Yeah. Well, because we realise it before they do. So, yeah, it adds to their narrative tension. And, you know, with the trust thing, what we- I try to be in the habit of, and I think there's some metaphors for it, is when I'm sparring with everyone. Schema is very gear dependent, right? And particularly if you're doing something that's like a long sword or a two-hander, like a rapier, you can get away with like a plastrum, which is like a plastic chest plate and a helmet. But, you know, long sword and bigger weapons, you tend to wear a lot more kit. You know, when I'm sparring someone in a social circumstance, I have to check with them what level of kit that they have, right? Because otherwise I might hit them in somewhere that they're not comfortable being here. But the interesting circumstances for me arises when there is disparity in the level of protection. I find my like, it can be frustrating, where I'm like, I'm wearing full kit and they're wearing like gloves and a helmet and I'm like, I can only hit you on the head.

Yeah, that's that is enormously frustrating. I've also had some circumstances where, for example, someone has forgot to put their legs on, their greaves, their leg protectors. And it's a very easy thing to forget. And to be honest, they're really annoying pieces of kit, like they're awkward to put on, they're clumsy. And a lot of us really don't enjoy using them. But leg cuts are a genuine way to end a fight. And I love leg cuts when I can make them work. And I remember there was a moment when I was fighting someone, and I've got the most beautiful, beautiful moment for a leg cut. You know, I've I've my first intention was to cut at their head. They've responded to that. And I've just dropped into a lunge and cut at their legs. And about, you know, three millionths of a second into the cut at their legs, I remember they weren't wearing leg protection. And you know, I'm swinging a kilogram of steel at their ankles.

Did you- Were you able to pull the hit?

Yes.

But it creates a hesitancy, right? That actually creates an opportunity for them that they've probably ended up whacking you. Yes.

Yeah, exactly. Yeah. And it's, you know, it's all good feeling. You know, this is a context of cooperation. So there was no hard feelings. But it's just that moment of realising that there isn't an asymmetry of vulnerability there and, oh God, what am I doing?

I think that's a great way of the asymmetry of vulnerability is a great way of thinking about two characters in the situation because it's like that where their weaknesses are where they're willing to be here and the intensity of which are able to go at each other even if something that is more playful. Right and we happen like we've had done it as kids as we do it as adults we're joking around and then someone got steps over a line. Yes. Right.

Exactly yeah yeah and or you having an argument with someone who who might have some kind of psychological issue that everyone is aware of and they're struggling with it and they're insulting you they're having a go at something you haven't done and you can't just say to them well you failed in all of these ways. Because of this particular issue you have because that's the more vulnerable than you are you can't say that but you want to say it you might be halfway to saying it but you know what I mean it's it's a parallel sense of God you know we're not wearing the same gear.

Yeah do I go for the cheap shot because I'm feel backed into a car and sometimes you do right sometimes you can people go for a cheap shot because they're even though they're not that vulnerable right because they feel slightly panicked they will go for the vulnerability, You know the the obvious point I'm going to go for your leg and hit you I know that that's a weak point that we've otherwise established I can't go for.

Absolutely yeah.

Pre-existing injuries awesome I think we covered a lot there and it was longer than I offered Damon so I appreciate you staying for the full time if people want to find out more about your writing and your work where can they find you.

They can either go to damonyoung.com.au, or to Instagram, it's damonyoung.

And you don't advertise your Mastodon.

Oh, I just- I'm not used to advertising it, but yeah, I'm- Like, you don't have to.

I was just asking because I was like, it'd be interesting to the first person that's like, oh, you can find me on Mustardon.

Yes, you can find me on Mustardon at Damon A Young.

Because, yeah, I don't know how long Twitter's going to be around Elon Musk's latest round of bat shit crazy.

Yeah, I deleted my account earlier this year.

Yeah, yeah. Anyway. I'm still there.

I'm still there.

Putting that aside. Awesome that was that was really fun thank you.

Hey thank you.

As you all know if you want more draft zero more often please do become a patron all our patrons are amazing and we get some pretty cool interactions and questions through the patron platform but as always in particular we would like to thank our top tier patrons who currently are Alexandra, Casimir, Eduardo, Jennifer, Thomas, Garrett, Randy, Jessie, Sandra, Thies, Alex and Crob.

You guys are the best. Thank you. us and spread the word for free via a rating and review on Apple podcasts. Very important for spreading the word. Or if you think that what we do here is worth a dollar or preferably more than a dollar, then you can also find links to our Patreon page to support us getting these episodes to you quicker. Thanks. and thanks for listening.