The Dark Knight Rises: Keysi does it again
Mon, Jul 23 2012 06:25
| krav maga, keysi, martial arts, film review, christian bale, fighting, street fight, fighters, KFM, tom hardy, self defence, batman
| Permalink
This was always going to be my “film event of the year” the trilogy Chirstopher Nolan has masterminded sees it’s third installment crash on to screens with hype, controversy and just a little bit jaded cynicism murmuring away in some quarters which it answers at a canter.
For me, I’m not much a comic book fan, but Batman was always my favourite by a long chalk. The other two films took something not easily done and nailed it. Blending the fantasy of caped crusaders, sexy women and a life of danger and intrigue and not falling squarely into clichéd parody should be applauded. While I’m not here to review the film as a whole, suffice to say it makes a bold claim as part of trilogy which rivals Jackson’s LOTR venture.
This ‘reboot’ of Batman first landed in 2005 and for me only one other cinematic example of blending realistic martial arts with acting existed. All others before and since the Bourne films (oddly another trilogy, soon to be quadrilogy) had been put under a shadow of scrutiny when it comes to offering up audiences acceptable hand-to-hand combat for screen. Not only did Bourne take on-screen fight scenes and make you question the word ‘scene’ but they showed that our tendency to assign ‘hero’ status to a character doesn’t need to be sated like most childish urges by making theses characters immortal, flawless and untouchable when it came to the actual fighting.
To do that with the excellent but somewhat everyman that is Matt Damon was a landmark for me. It showed when Daniel Craig became the new Bond and then Bale as Batman showed that “real” just got a whole lot well, “realer” in Hollywood. Whatever the “style” it’s important to remember that stuntmen, actors, fight choreographers etc are all limited, by skill sets, resources and more importantly presentation.
To do that with the excellent but somewhat everyman that is Matt Damon was a landmark for me. It showed when Daniel Craig became the new Bond and then Bale as Batman showed that “real” just got a whole lot well, “realer” in Hollywood. Whatever the “style” it’s important to remember that stuntmen, actors, fight choreographers etc are all limited, by skill sets, resources and more importantly presentation.
When people remark they want to “fight like that” what they usually mean is, I want to be successful – copying ‘moves’ from a film is not high on my list of training methods. What these forays of my passion crossing over into the mainstream world does though, is question not only what is possible for these professionals honing a craft; but also what is possible in my own training.
The Batman films use the Keysi Fighting Method (KFM) as devised by two stuntmen who give vague reasons and recollections of their credentials when it comes to offering an art of sorts up. I know of one club locally, and anecdotal evidence of their training worries me. Putting a new student in at the deep end should be done to benefit the student, not everyone else. All KFM’s claims about being “solely” for the street should be scrutinised. Even Wing Tsun acknowledges, embraces and explores the history and heritage of the art as a cultural endeavour. Selling what you do, often involves managing the expectations of potential students – with this film behind them the KFM boys might need a bigger damp cloth right now.
What we see in The Dark Knight Rises is a stoic but still impressive continuation of the action scenes which have helped make it such a landmark set of films. Batman has after all still not shed the Adam West days of high camp for most people, for the films to steer well clear of it is logical. Instead we see fight scenes where Batman still utilises gadgetry and the advantage of surprise but ultimately he has to wade in and go toe to toe with adversaries to get the job done.
You can see why the Bourne and Bond films have so much in common beyond alliteration with our hero. To really make people believe these days you have to show them, almost unflinchingly that fighting is something visceral and animalistic, a necessary state and capability within everyone. While I have my doubts about KFM based on their own literature and the fact it seems very much “for screen” it does have a certain base which makes this film and Batman utterly captivating.
The physiques of Bale and Batman and Hardy as Bane are truly exceptional. As athletes they are clearly well coached and well drilled. The fitness, nutrition and physical training aspects of Hollywood, is a big industry in its own right. Hardy has already delved into MMA and clearly has the physical ability to play such roles. Here he ups his game. There is one scene where Bane and Batman go toe to amidst a crowd of people which really could have been a turkey. To give an audience that much visual stimulus and keep us engaged on the swinging fists, forearms and bone crushing hostility of the fight was exceptional.
This is where KFM comes into its own. I often think it looks like Krav Maga. It’s quick but unsubtle, smashing and carving into opponents offers the best reward for audiences. The hammer fists, elbows and repeated blunt blows to the same targets offer a strategically valuable insight into ‘real fighting’ but lack the realism of tissue, blood and bone trauma for a film aiming squarely at the young male market and in need of upholding it’s 12A rating. For me there is nothing new in the technique or approach. There are no secrets or hidden gems I haven’t used a thousand times myself. That’s why I remain a little unsure about KFM beyond entertainment. It looks great, but it doesn’t seem to be much more than the basics of self defence executed with a visual flourish and Hollywood’s eye.
The film itself is exceptional. It delivered for me. The action likewise, but before running off to don your cape and ape your hero take the time to ensure you separate fiction from reality. The likely from the possible, and check that what stuntmen have given the world of cinema shouldn’t remain there and there alone.
The eternal question: Part III
Tue, Dec 27 2011 08:56
| krav maga, MMA, martial arts, sambo, www.amaclub.org.uk, Wing Tsun Kung fu, martial arts Altrincham, Japanese martial arts, systema
| Permalink
In parts one and two of this mini-saga cum blog post I have discussed the various aspects of how valid any given martial art is to practice and pursue. Of course all arts have their wheres and what for’s when it comes to what they do, however my perspective is heavily coloured by my main art Wing Tsun.
Previously discussed have been the common anxieties over the validity of the art, the transmission of it from teacher to student and the context of the training room, street and competitive arenas in which one might use their hard won skills. Today however I want to add the third common perspective on applying your art and that’s the use of it by the military and police forces around the world.
Martial arts tend to fall into the “sport” and “practical” camps broadly speaking the taboo really being over the deadly aspects of specific techniques being the main distraction for many who forget one can die in the ring just as easily as a “practical” practitioner may or may not choose to kill someone else in a given fight.
However there is a strong following amongst martial artists on forums and beneath YouTube videos that reveal a slightly bizarre almost political bent towards a specific cluster of martial arts devised and used by various military forces. This is reflected in the marketing devices of “new” to the high street arts such as Krav Maga and to a lesser extent Systema/Sambo of Russia. Throw in recent references and uses in Hollywood blockbusters, and it’s easy to understand the explosion of these arts.
But on these forums you will see arguments about the SEALs (USA navy) vs. the Spetsnatz littered throughout relevant and often irrelevant discussions on learning and practising any given art. It usually centres upon a childish desire similar to who would win a fight – Batman or Superman? The desire to don combat pants instead of rash guards is not always an invalid one, far from it. However as you will see from the monster thread below (wading through it is not necessary) there are loaded assumptions with opting for a ‘military’ outlook on your training.
http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=102789
The art you choose often defines you for other people and the sort of people attracted to an art can be subject plenty of labels and assumptions. Military arts if you like, are no different. Often some may worry about an unhealthy obsession with the constant onus on death, destruction and weaponry but to be honest these arts no different to Japanese arts with their roots in feudal society or the monastic roots of Chinese Kung Fu. It’s simply that the AK47 s the mechanised equivalent of the katana et al.
One thing WT emphasises is its creation as an art for the little person to overcome the much bigger, stronger more aggressive foe. What the military has however is a minimum requirement of physical fitness before you can join, likewise this is a point rarely mentioned or glossed over by many people. It weakens somewhat the position of “well the army use it” type of thinking.
What can be said however is that the WT masters have visited and trained many units all over the world including in Europe and India as well as across Asia. The famous Krav was largely kept to Israel thanks to its newness. Likewise the Russians have been using Sambo since its inception taken from Japanese arts on a large scale since the 1940s the real question is what these arts were used for. Only since the end of Communism and the cultural mixing with Russia has its martial arts had much western scrutiny after nearly a century in isolation.
Above is one version of Wing Tsun being framed in a military context. The problems with these kind of demonstrations are fairly self-evident as the notion of "real" runs in opposition to staging something.
The Japanese arts were very relevant to military power centuries ago whilst the Russians and Israelis had very specific needs and demands in new and different environment thanks largely to the mechanisation and use of guns which consigned the Samurai to the history books. If people bear this in mind it’s easy to see that validity is really what you make of it. Many martial arts historians are often keen to note that medieval Europe had techniques that “look a lot like Jiu Jitsu” or that the Victorians practised a version of Jitsu utilising their canes and knives etc. Does this mean Jitsu is not a Japanese invention by approximation of British fight culture? No, probably not. Does it mean that universal truth to facing an armed attacker when unarmed is quite similar? I’d say so.
The historical and cultural connotations of your art should never be ignored but they should frame it not place it in a cage. The fundamentals of disarming an attacking should be relatively universal. It is not for us to question why the Filipinos use sticks almost exclusively and as a base for all of their better known fighting arts. What we should do is consider the skills this gives the practitioner and how useful they are in everyday life. After all it is incredibly recently where society didn’t dictate the need to be armed, and the likelihood of using and facing weapons on an everyday level.
This is really what you need to consider again, it’s not what your art can do for you but what can you do with your art? What truths have been exposed as fraudulent or left to antiquity and what will always remain useful to anyone willing or needing to fight?
Research and reading help you place your questions and concerns. Training whatever and wherever it may be should answer them.
The eternal question: Part 1
The eternal question: part 2
Previously discussed have been the common anxieties over the validity of the art, the transmission of it from teacher to student and the context of the training room, street and competitive arenas in which one might use their hard won skills. Today however I want to add the third common perspective on applying your art and that’s the use of it by the military and police forces around the world.
Martial arts tend to fall into the “sport” and “practical” camps broadly speaking the taboo really being over the deadly aspects of specific techniques being the main distraction for many who forget one can die in the ring just as easily as a “practical” practitioner may or may not choose to kill someone else in a given fight.
However there is a strong following amongst martial artists on forums and beneath YouTube videos that reveal a slightly bizarre almost political bent towards a specific cluster of martial arts devised and used by various military forces. This is reflected in the marketing devices of “new” to the high street arts such as Krav Maga and to a lesser extent Systema/Sambo of Russia. Throw in recent references and uses in Hollywood blockbusters, and it’s easy to understand the explosion of these arts.
But on these forums you will see arguments about the SEALs (USA navy) vs. the Spetsnatz littered throughout relevant and often irrelevant discussions on learning and practising any given art. It usually centres upon a childish desire similar to who would win a fight – Batman or Superman? The desire to don combat pants instead of rash guards is not always an invalid one, far from it. However as you will see from the monster thread below (wading through it is not necessary) there are loaded assumptions with opting for a ‘military’ outlook on your training.
http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=102789
The art you choose often defines you for other people and the sort of people attracted to an art can be subject plenty of labels and assumptions. Military arts if you like, are no different. Often some may worry about an unhealthy obsession with the constant onus on death, destruction and weaponry but to be honest these arts no different to Japanese arts with their roots in feudal society or the monastic roots of Chinese Kung Fu. It’s simply that the AK47 s the mechanised equivalent of the katana et al.
One thing WT emphasises is its creation as an art for the little person to overcome the much bigger, stronger more aggressive foe. What the military has however is a minimum requirement of physical fitness before you can join, likewise this is a point rarely mentioned or glossed over by many people. It weakens somewhat the position of “well the army use it” type of thinking.
What can be said however is that the WT masters have visited and trained many units all over the world including in Europe and India as well as across Asia. The famous Krav was largely kept to Israel thanks to its newness. Likewise the Russians have been using Sambo since its inception taken from Japanese arts on a large scale since the 1940s the real question is what these arts were used for. Only since the end of Communism and the cultural mixing with Russia has its martial arts had much western scrutiny after nearly a century in isolation.
Above is one version of Wing Tsun being framed in a military context. The problems with these kind of demonstrations are fairly self-evident as the notion of "real" runs in opposition to staging something.
The Japanese arts were very relevant to military power centuries ago whilst the Russians and Israelis had very specific needs and demands in new and different environment thanks largely to the mechanisation and use of guns which consigned the Samurai to the history books. If people bear this in mind it’s easy to see that validity is really what you make of it. Many martial arts historians are often keen to note that medieval Europe had techniques that “look a lot like Jiu Jitsu” or that the Victorians practised a version of Jitsu utilising their canes and knives etc. Does this mean Jitsu is not a Japanese invention by approximation of British fight culture? No, probably not. Does it mean that universal truth to facing an armed attacker when unarmed is quite similar? I’d say so.
The historical and cultural connotations of your art should never be ignored but they should frame it not place it in a cage. The fundamentals of disarming an attacking should be relatively universal. It is not for us to question why the Filipinos use sticks almost exclusively and as a base for all of their better known fighting arts. What we should do is consider the skills this gives the practitioner and how useful they are in everyday life. After all it is incredibly recently where society didn’t dictate the need to be armed, and the likelihood of using and facing weapons on an everyday level.
This is really what you need to consider again, it’s not what your art can do for you but what can you do with your art? What truths have been exposed as fraudulent or left to antiquity and what will always remain useful to anyone willing or needing to fight?
Research and reading help you place your questions and concerns. Training whatever and wherever it may be should answer them.
The eternal question: Part 1
The eternal question: part 2