Rob Roy
Dave Neal
--
Dave Neal
Northwestern University, Evanston, IL. USA
dtn...@lulu.acns.nwu.edu
Caught "Rob Roy" last weekend, when it opened. Tim Roth was great
as foppish swordmaster supreme Archibald Cunningham.
The one thing that caught my eye is that Rob Roy (Liam Neeson)
goes on repeatedly about honor and its importance. And yet,
during the climactic fight scene, he "cheats" and bests his
opponent not with superior swordplay, but with luck.
Maybe it's the Hollywood ending phenomenon, requiring the bad guy
to lose, but if Rob Roy MacGregor can't outfight Cunningham, he
can't do it.
Still an enjoyable, if rather long movie.
David Glasser
>Caught "Rob Roy" last weekend, when it opened. Tim Roth was great
>as foppish swordmaster supreme Archibald Cunningham.
>The one thing that caught my eye is that Rob Roy (Liam Neeson)
>goes on repeatedly about honor and its importance. And yet,
>during the climactic fight scene, he "cheats" and bests his
>opponent not with superior swordplay, but with luck.
I saw the film Wednesday night and was very happy with every aspect of it.
Dave, regarding the "cheating" that you speak of, remember that it was common
practice in those days to 'command the opponent's sword' (taking hold of his
blade with your unarmed hand). Roy was facing a skilled rapier duelist with
his claymore. He knew he was likely to lose but demanded the fight anyway as
a matter of honor. The fights are beautifully choreographed in period style
by William Hobbs. Roth uses a deadly series of redoubled passes rather
than lunging, etc. Neeson is very cagey, trying body feints and heavy cuts,
wary of Roth's potential derobements from line -- easily accomplished with his
lighter rapier point. In the end I think it must be the villain's arrogance
and self-assurance that does him in.
>Maybe it's the Hollywood ending phenomenon, requiring the bad guy
>to lose, but if Rob Roy MacGregor can't outfight Cunningham, he
>can't do it.
I thought the ending of the fight an unexpected twist. Quite different from
the Hollywood formula where the hero wins through consummate skill.
>Still an enjoyable, if rather long movie.
I found it perfectly paced. Not the typical whirlwind of short, action packed
sequences we usually get. This Scottish film reminds me of older, classic
adventure films, only grittier, more real. Robert MacGregor really lived.
I give Rob Roy an unconditional "THUMB'S UP."
SCOTLAND FOR EVER!
David Glasser
fencing master %DFB:BLZ/LLZ Bonn NFF:BSI/BF/NSKS Bergen
gla...@facstaff.wisc.edu
Department of Kinesiology, University of Wisconsin -- Madison
Michael J Seidel
...
>The one thing that caught my eye is that Rob Roy (Liam Neeson)
>goes on repeatedly about honor and its importance. And yet,
>during the climactic fight scene, he "cheats" and bests his
>opponent not with superior swordplay, but with luck.
Spoilers warning!
Luck? Cheats?
Grabbing Cunningham's blade is not cheating... they were not fencing!
They were fighting! Feigning worse injuries then has to trick his
opponent to close such as he did was a masterstroke.
As for "luck", was it luck that allowed the man to hold an edged weapon,
injuring himself in the process, tightly enough that Cunningham could not
withdraw it? Extreme courage maybe, but luck?
Evaluating Rob Roy from a modern sports perspective is unfair. View
the fight as what it was supposed to be, in the eyes of that period,
and then tell me that Rob Roy was not an extremely honourable and
courageous man.
-Mike
-----
There is no better load a man can carry then too much good sense, and no
worse then too much beer.
Togu
I too saw this movie and enjoyed it immensly. In response to your
statement that Rob Roy differed from modern forms, could you please
explain how? Is modern foil/sabre/e... far different? Is there no
deuling/swordplay like in the movie, or is it much tamer? I've never
really seen a fencing tournament, but isn't it like quick lunges and
scores and the round is over before it's begun? No real back and forth
clanging of foils like in a movie.
As you can tell, I know nothing about this sport. By answering these
questions though, perhaps I'll at least be closer to novicely literate (g)
Thank you,
Tod
Eric Dew
supposedly depicted two people fighting to the death (I haven't seen the
film). Clearly, there will be different tactics used between the two
versions. There is this right-of-way rule in (foil and saber) fencing which
is usually not agreed upon in combat. While being slimey in fencing occurs
a lot, being slimey in fencing does not require the other fencer to miss
you completely. As for fencing tournaments: no, they're not always quick
jumps and scores and the bout is over before it's begun. Such bouts
are usually in the preliminary rounds when very good fencers kick the s**t out
of more inexperienced (or underprepared) fencers. In the DE rounds, the
gross time is about 15 minutes. Yes, there is a lot of in-between time: time
between the 'halt' and 'fence' when there is no fencing action taken. But
then, a friend once told me that Chuck Knox (football coach) once timed the
actual playing time of a football game (i.e., the time between the hiking of
the ball until the whistle for the down). He said it ran about 10 minutes.
In a related vein, how about sumo wrestling: twenty minutes of salt throwing
and grunting followed by 15 seconds of shoving before one gets knocked off the
circle. So, yes, there is very little play time between 'fence' and 'halt',
but that's the nature of this and many other sports. (You can always
watch the Indy 500: 5 hours of non-stop boredom. :-) ) There is a good amount
of metal clanging, depending on who the fencers are. In some collegiate
saber tourneys, there is a lot of swashbuckling. This is mainly due to
the fact that these college kids know each other a lot and aren't quite seasoned
enough to exploit their legs. Epee has the least bell-clanging. Try the
sport, you'll realize how much you prefer to avoid any excessive metal
clanging: too much room for a lucky hit to score when one gets too feisty.
Sorry for the 1 paragraph response.
EDEW
Jessie Micales
>>The one thing that caught my eye is that Rob Roy (Liam Neeson)
>>goes on repeatedly about honor and its importance. And yet,
>>during the climactic fight scene, he "cheats" and bests his
>>opponent not with superior swordplay, but with luck.
>Spoilers warning!
>
????????
>Luck? Cheats?
>Grabbing Cunningham's blade is not cheating... they were not fencing!
>They were fighting! Feigning worse injuries then has to trick his
>opponent to close such as he did was a masterstroke.
>As for "luck", was it luck that allowed the man to hold an edged weapon,
>injuring himself in the process, tightly enough that Cunningham could not
>withdraw it? Extreme courage maybe, but luck?
>Evaluating Rob Roy from a modern sports perspective is unfair. View
>the fight as what it was supposed to be, in the eyes of that period,
>and then tell me that Rob Roy was not an extremely honourable and
>courageous man.
>-Mike
I also thought Rob Roy was excellent. It never even crossed my mind that he
cheated. After all, he was fighting for his life - not a touch! A
recitation of the rules in the beginning didn't say anything about using the
unarmed hand!!!
The response of my (nonfencing) coworkers to the movie was disappointing,
however. One woman shuddered and said it was "predictably violent." This
was from someone who had spent a month working in Scotland and had visited
the Highlands. I responded by saying that Scottish history was incredibly
violent. She agreed, but still said she hated the movie. There is little
appreciation of honor or history in our society. Sometimes I feel like a
stranger in a strange land. Sigh.
Jessie (jmic...@facstaff.wisc.edu)
Conrad Claus
>
> --
> Dave Neal
> Northwestern University, Evanston, IL. USA
> dtn...@lulu.acns.nwu.edu
>
> Caught "Rob Roy" last weekend, when it opened. Tim Roth was great
> as foppish swordmaster supreme Archibald Cunningham.
>
> The one thing that caught my eye is that Rob Roy (Liam Neeson)
> goes on repeatedly about honor and its importance. And yet,
> during the climactic fight scene, he "cheats" and bests his
> opponent not with superior swordplay, but with luck.
>
> Maybe it's the Hollywood ending phenomenon, requiring the bad guy
> to lose, but if Rob Roy MacGregor can't outfight Cunningham, he
> can't do it.
>
> Still an enjoyable, if rather long movie.
>
>
And what is so dishonorable about grabbing an opponent's blade? The
movie was not trying to portray some collegiate fencing bout on a strip...
Grabbing blades was a fairly common technique in period. The only
problem with it's appearance in Rob Roy I had was that someone as good as
the fop would have known all about it and not have been surprised had it
been used against him...
Anyone wanna comment on the techniques we saw used in the final duel?
Seemed to me that the fop's weapon was an early smallsword while the
techniques he used were for a heavy rapier, a weapon of some hundred
years ago or so earlier... anyone who knows more than me care to comment?
BTW - the *real* Rob Roy was a pretty bad dude, a bit tougher, and
more capable with a sword, than Liam Neeson came off.
Conrad
>
>
"And gentlemen in England now-a-bed
Shall think themselves accur's they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day."
Dennis Grant
>From: jmic...@facstaff.wisc.edu (Jessie Micales)
>Subject: Re: Rob Roy
>Date: Mon, 17 Apr 1995 13:20:00 GMT
>Keywords: Spoilers
I also thought the film was excellent. Thumbs way up!
What caught my eye about the climatic fight at the end was that Cunningham,
while an excellent swordsman, really wasn't making full use of his rapier.
Instead of using the point, thrusting and lunging, he was treating his weapon
like a very fast and light claymore. While this allowed him to press the
attack more than the claymore-wielding McGregor, and helped tire his opponent
by forcing him to defend with the heavier and slower blade, when he did land a
cut there wasn't enough mass behind the blade to do any real damage.
One smack with the claymore was catastrophic though. :)
If Cunningham had been fighting with the point though, I think he'd've
skewered McGregor earlier on.
Hmmm. I suppose it's quite possible that the rapier became fashionable before
the point fighting style was in general use, so it's quite feasable that many
young nobles (!) would have taken up the rapier without recieving instruction
of fighting with the point. Any historians have any insight into this?
Overall, a great movie. One that stirred me Celtic blood an' made me wish for
earlier times. For at least a second. :)
I wonder if I could have bagpipe music piped into my next bout...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Grant Cycor Tech Support Staff/HTML Design/Graphic Artist/Amiga support
dgr...@cycor.ca Amiga 4000/030/6/120/'882/17" IDEK/NEC CD-ROM/14.4 CLSIP/AmiTCP
http://www.cycor.ca/TCave/ Visit Trog's Cave!
Dan Nafe
--
d...@shadow.net http://www.shadow.net/~dan
In Amerika, no one can deprive you of your life, liberty or property,
except the government...
dani...@tigger.stcloud.msus.edu
the ending fight was well staged, Roth was fighting rather smart, he gave up
the height advatage to Liam so he had to use speed, but i did not see the
redoublements, i thought that Roth was useing more Preams (sp?) you know that
goofy wrap your arm around your back and hit your opponite befor you pass by.
Oh by the way Liam was not useing a Claymore as my girlfreind pointed out,
BTW she is a non-fencer, but is in a Scottish reactment group, Claymores are
BIG like over 3ft and weild 2 handed and Liam was useing a sword shorter than
that and useing it one handed.
sorry for any spelling mistakes...ahh the joyes of beening dyslexic
Chris Daniels
David W Neevel
> Anyone wanna comment on the techniques we saw used in the final duel?
> Seemed to me that the fop's weapon was an early smallsword while the
> techniques he used were for a heavy rapier, a weapon of some hundred
> years ago or so earlier... anyone who knows more than me care to comment?
I also noted that Cunningham's fighting style seemed out period. His
weapon appeared to be what is often termed a "transistion rapier"-- that is,
a weapon lighter and shorter than the monstrous 4-5' blades common in the
16th century, but still being larger than the later smallsword. His technique
also seemed more in line with earlier rapier styles-- lots of slashes, but
few (in fact, I don't recall any) thrusts.
To my knowledge, by the early 18th century (when the film is set),
all such rapiers had been superseeded by the smallsword (or the colichemard),
and fencing techniques with such weapons relied entirely on the thrust. The
edge (if there was one) was there only to prevent less hardy souls from doing
precisely what Rob Roy did in the final fight.
I recall reading a description of smallsword tactics for use against
broadsword in Alfred Hutton's 'The Sword and the Centuries' (a thouroughly
enjoyable book if you ever run across a copy). They basically consisted of
keeping out of distance, making quick thrusting attacks into preparation as
the broadword-wielder was winding up, and attacking while the opponent was
recovering from taking a swing. Parrying was more or less pointless, since
the smallsword didn't have enough mass to deflect a well made broadsword
cut. This seems a far cry from the spectacular over-the-shoulder parries
and close quarter inquartata type moves that Cunningham was making.
On the other hand, the British Isles did tend to lag behind the continent
in adopting the latest fencing styles and weapons, so it's possible that
people using an older style of fighting would still be around. I suspect,
however, that the film's fight director was more interested in creating
an exciting fight scene that in complete historical accuracy (and he
certainly succeded at that). Of course, I could also be totally wrong :-).
BTW, the weapon that Rob Roy was using was not a true claymore, but a basket
hilted broadsword. Such weapons were often falsely dubbed 'claymores' in the
18th and 19th centuries to provide some semblance of connection with the
traditional claymore for the army units that carried them. A real claymore
is a large, two-handed sword, usually with a 'V' shaped cross-bar guard.
-Dave Neevel
D Synstel
>out,
>BTW she is a non-fencer, but is in a Scottish reactment group, Claymores
>are
yes she was using a claymore, there were two swords called the claymore
(sp?), the "true" claymore a five foot two handed sword from an earlier
time period and the basket hilted one handed verion that was in the movie.
for some reason the title stuck to two weapons, probably the same reason
that foil. epee and sabre are all "fencing swords", people just called
them that.
have fun,
Don
Steve Hick
> I too saw this movie and enjoyed it immensly. In response to your
> statement that Rob Roy differed from modern forms, could you please
> explain how? Is modern foil/sabre/e... far different? Is there no
> deuling/swordplay like in the movie, or is it much tamer? I've never
> really seen a fencing tournament, but isn't it like quick lunges and
> scores and the round is over before it's begun? No real back and forth
> clanging of foils like in a movie.
>
> As you can tell, I know nothing about this sport. By answering these
> questions though, perhaps I'll at least be closer to novicely literate (g)
>
> Thank you,
> Tod
The fight correographer for Robb Roy was William Hobbs, one of the most
famous members of the British Society of Fight Directors, who has also
done the fighting scenes from the recent Cyrano and the Three and Four
Musketters, among others. His tour de force is The Duelists.
Hobbs is knowledgible about period fencing, although some within the
British Society fault him for not being as accurate as he could be (e.g.
LAMBDA-Waller's group). Likely as not we saw Sinclair vs. Hope (two
Scotts/English fecning masters of about that time.) or even Angelo. The
Hope is more likely to look a 'little' like modern fencing, Angelo
certainly. However, Hobbs is known to include a lot of 'roughhousing' in
his correography, as well as a lot of other incidental effects of terrain
and environment (slipping, falling, etc..)
ST
--
If you knew me, you'd know GTE would never let me represent their opinion in anyway
David Glasser
>What caught my eye about the climatic fight at the end was that Cunningham,
>while an excellent swordsman, really wasn't making full use of his rapier.
>Instead of using the point, thrusting and lunging, he was treating his weapon
>like a very fast and light claymore. While this allowed him to press the
>attack more than the claymore-wielding McGregor, and helped tire his opponent
>by forcing him to defend with the heavier and slower blade, when he did land a
>cut there wasn't enough mass behind the blade to do any real damage.
>Hmmm. I suppose it's quite possible that the rapier became fashionable before
>the point fighting style was in general use, so it's quite feasable that many
>young nobles (!) would have taken up the rapier without recieving instruction
>of fighting with the point. Any historians have any insight into this?
I think Cunningham was using what would be called a 'transition rapier.' This
was a lighter, shorter rapier than its predecessors. I don't think he dared
use a small-sword against a claymore. He wouldn't have been able to parry the
heavier cuts. Although the transition rapier was primarily a thrusting
weapon, it did have cutting edges and could make light cuts. The edge was
supposed to discourage commanding (seizing) the blade. I suppose we might
surmise that Cunningham was trying to wear MacGregor down with light cuts so
that he later deliver a killing thrust with less risk of being cut in two at
the same moment.
Note how he kept the Scot at bay with the line and the threat of a derobement.
David Glasser
>Oh by the way Liam was not useing a Claymore as my girlfreind pointed out,
>BTW she is a non-fencer, but is in a Scottish reactment group, Claymores are
>BIG like over 3ft and weild 2 handed and Liam was useing a sword shorter than
>that and useing it one handed.
There are two kinds of claymores.
Jon Jeffrey O'Brien
: There is a BIG difference between fighting and fencing.
: --
:
Only if you're doing it wrong.
Jeff
Conrad Claus
> I also caught the film and all I have to say is WOW!!!
> the ending fight was well staged, Roth was fighting rather smart, he gave up
> the height advatage to Liam so he had to use speed, but i did not see the
> redoublements, i thought that Roth was useing more Preams (sp?) you know that
> goofy wrap your arm around your back and hit your opponite befor you pass by.
> Oh by the way Liam was not useing a Claymore as my girlfreind pointed out,
> BTW she is a non-fencer, but is in a Scottish reactment group, Claymores are
> BIG like over 3ft and weild 2 handed and Liam was useing a sword shorter than
> that and useing it one handed.
> sorry for any spelling mistakes...ahh the joyes of beening dyslexic
> Chris Daniels
As I understand it "Claymore" simply means "big sword" - there are single
handed baket hilted claymores and larger ones used in both hands. I
think the term for a smaller sword is "clavmore" - I am undoubtedly wrong
here though.
Conrad Claus
Mitch Kief
>shaped cross-bar guard.
Oh yeah? Sez who? Where I come from a real claymore is OD green,
electrically detonated, and has a 50 meter blast radius. More
than adequate for taking care of a pack of whisky swillin'
highlanders! :)
--
Mkief
Michael Mezo
>the ending fight was well staged, Roth was fighting rather smart, he gave up
>the height advatage to Liam so he had to use speed, but i did not see the
>redoublements, i thought that Roth was useing more Preams (sp?) you know that
>goofy wrap your arm around your back and hit your opponite befor you pass by.
>Oh by the way Liam was not useing a Claymore as my girlfreind pointed out,
>BTW she is a non-fencer, but is in a Scottish reactment group, Claymores are
>BIG like over 3ft and weild 2 handed and Liam was useing a sword shorter than
>that and useing it one handed.
>sorry for any spelling mistakes...ahh the joyes of beening dyslexic
>Chris Daniels
Sorry, your Girlfriend is wrong. In Scotland, the sword was commonly referred
to as a claymore. In our later times, we have differentiated these into
classes like the Claymore (Heavy, short bladed two hander) and the Scottish
Boradsword (Liam Neesons weapon in Rob Roy).
L dale Walter
height, weight, blade advantage, that last battle would have been over in
one move. Low, feint drawing a counter attack, apris de faire flying
fifth carrying the blade, riposte to head.
All over. One move. 2 seconds.
Of course we all know that realistic swordfighting doesn't make for
"good" theatre.
L. Dale Walter
MSU Sabre Team 83-87
Keith Cunningham
and high handed thread, but I don't.
If the Bastard Cunningham is fool enough to gloat and not finish off his foe
in a 'sans quartier' fight then he got exactly what he asked for.
Altho as a historian he lingered too long after the cleaving in twain.
By the way it is not a claymore, Rob Roy was using a basket hilted sword.
Claymores are hand and a half, no basket, 56+ inch long great sword.
Keith "The poison dwarf" Cunningham
Steve Hick
ven...@holly.ACNS.ColoState.EDU (Michael Mezo) wrote:
I think the baskethilted sword (either a backsword or a shearing sword) is
refered to as a 'clayveg(or claybeg)'.
Steve
AMullhaupt
>>
If the Rob Roy character had know what he was doing, and exploited his
height, weight, blade advantage, that last battle would have been over in
one move. Low, feint drawing a counter attack, apris de faire flying
fifth carrying the blade, riposte to head.
<<
Not against that guy. He was a professional. RR counting on taking the
lighter blade, even if the feint worked, would have been suicidal. RR
was completely outgunned in speed and the lighter blade of his opponent
meant that it might be very hard for him to take the blade with certainty.
>>
All over. One move. 2 seconds.
<<
If RR went your way, the fight is over in two seconds. Problem is, he has
probably not maximized his chances of being the survivor. Although there
is every reason to keep the attack you mentioned in mind, using it without
thinking first, especially depending on the opponent's reaction to your
feint
is not sound in a duel. It isn't sound fencing, either.
Dean Johnston
I have noticed in the above postings and others, various veiws put
across about the nature of the weapons used and tactics employed in
the final fight scene of the movie Rob Roy.
Having not seen the movie (it has not been released in New
Zealand yet) I can't comment on what happens but for those interested
in ancient sword play I may be able to suggest an avenue of
exploration.
The "sharpes" used in the 17th & 18th centuries were much heavier
than there modern sporting equivilents and as such different consider-
ations effected there use. The absence of rules (eg.nothing to stop
one from using ones left hand) also effected how swords were used.
There is a book,
Schools and Masters of Fence: from the middle ages
to the eightenth century-3rd ed. 1969
Castle,Egerton 1858-1920
Arms & Armour,London,
which covers the developement of fencing from the age of the broard
sword through to the foundations of modern fencing with "blunts" or
foils. The corresponding shift from the use of the edge to using only
the tip is also covered.
Although written in the late 18 hundreds it is still an authoritive
and interesting book to read albeit hard to find.I can only suggest
university libraries or rare book shops/clubs (probably something on
the net somewhere)
One last consideration about the film. I am told that if something
moves too fast while being filmed then it often can't be seen
effectivly when played back. This could possably restrict the
correography. The weight of the props could also restrict or hinder
the sword play too I supose.
Dean
>
University of York Fencing Club
Orde
Steve Hick
<dean.j...@stonebow.otago.ac.nz> wrote:
> There is a book,
>
> Schools and Masters of Fence: from the middle ages
> to the eightenth century-3rd ed. 1969
> Castle,Egerton 1858-1920
> Arms & Armour,London,
>
> which covers the developement of fencing from the age of the broard
> sword through to the foundations of modern fencing with "blunts" or
> foils. The corresponding shift from the use of the edge to using only
> the tip is also covered.
> Although written in the late 18 hundreds it is still an authoritive
> and interesting book to read albeit hard to find.I can only suggest
> university libraries or rare book shops/clubs (probably something on
> the net somewhere)
Still the best work on the topic, although it is in many places wrong
(especially in the analysis of early rapier and before) and suffused with
Victorian cultural darwinism and Castle's prejudice for the French foil.
ST
Orde
> Of course we all know that realistic swordfighting doesn't make for
> "good" theatre.
I beg to differ. It can happen, but about as often as politicians telling
the truth!
If any one on this side of the pond saw Sharpe's Sword last week they
may well have noted one good, if one sided, duel (the priest vs the fat
bloke) and a move I have been waiting for for ages. It went like this:
Baddie raises his sword for a massive two handed chop.
Goddie (Sharp) runns him through the gut while he is totaly open.
How often does this obvious move get neglected by goodies and baddies
the world over?
Orde
Fifth Avenue Collection
>If any one on this side of the pond saw Sharpe's Sword last week they may
well
>have noted one good, if one sided, duel (the priest vs the fat bloke) and
a
>move I have been waiting for for ages. It went like this:
>
>Baddie raises his sword for a massive two handed chop.
>
>Goddie (Sharp) runns him through the gut while he is totaly open.
>
>How often does this obvious move get neglected by goodies and baddies the
world
>over?
incarnation) for examples.
--
Jim Robb
Fifth Avenue Collection Ltd. (306) 694-8188 (voice)
Moose Jaw, SK Canada (306) 694-8188 (fax)
Andrew Ahlgren
>>Baddie raises his sword for a massive two handed chop.
>>
>>How often does this obvious move get neglected by goodies and baddies
the world over?
>
This was one of the climactic scenes in the original Japanese film
THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN. Novice runs bellowing, samurai sward raised
overhead, at serene scholastic swordmaster who waits (sheathed, as I
recall) until the last moment and sweeps upward in a single stroke
just before baddie can bring his down. Moral:"up" beats down every time,
even if you aren't in line.
pe...@minster.york.ac.uk
aahl...@aaas.org (Andrew Ahlgren) writes in Article 2233 in rec.sport.fencing:
=>--- >>Baddie raises his sword for a massive two handed chop.
=>--- >>
=>--- >>Goodie (Sharp) runns him through the gut while he is totaly open.
=>--- >>
=>--- >>How often does this obvious move get neglected by goodies and baddies
=>--- >>the world over?
=>--- >
=>---
=>--- This was one of the climactic scenes in the original Japanese film
=>--- THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN. Novice runs bellowing, samurai sward raised
=>--- overhead, at serene scholastic swordmaster who waits (sheathed, as I
=>--- recall) until the last moment and sweeps upward in a single stroke
=>--- just before baddie can bring his down. Moral:"up" beats down every
=>--- time, even if you aren't in line.
In Akira Kurosawa's 'Seven Samurai', the master swordsman Kyozo is first met
fighting with bamboo staves against a more aggressive samurai. After losing
the mock combat, the samurai asserts that the contest was a draw, but Kyozo
states that he would have won with real swords. The samurai draws his sword,
and attacks in the same was, Kyozo counters again and wins.
In both cases Kyozo adopts a stance with his left foot leading and sword at his
right side, blade edge forward , tip pointing down and back at 45 degrees
(waki gamae). As his opponant approaches, he steps back with his left foot,
turns the right wrist over the left and cuts down to his attackers exposed left
shoulder.
In the climactic scene of the movie, Kyozo gets shot.
Moral: there are no morals
Pete.