risks

[esseta]

Hello - I'm not a fencer myself. I'm writing a paper about portraying the play Hamlet in a modern setting, and a good portion of my paper will be devoted to the fencing match at the end. In the play one character secretly chooses a sharp sword instead of a dull one and poisons it to kill his opponent - how possible would that be in a modern fencing match with all of the protective gear?

any help would be appreciated.

thanks,

-esseta

[Sabresque]

If they were fencing a dry bout, i suppose it could be possible. The back hand is almost never covered, so that's where he could deliver his blow. He might sharpen the sword, so that if it hit, it might punch through the protective button on the end, injuring Hamlet. But I'm sure others could give you much better ideas. One thing abotu writing, though is you can think up situations where they wouldn't be wearing as much protection as normal, I guess. To make it work.

Good luck! <img src="graemlins/jester.gif" border="0" alt="[Jester]" />

[Pommel]

In the United States FIE Homologated uniforms, i.e. those made of ballistic nylon, are not required for any level of competition making nylon and cotton uniforms common. These would be easily pierced by a sharpened weapon with a rigid blade. However, most fencing today is electricly scored, meaning that the point end of the weapon is actually a cylinder with a spring loaded plunger that must be depressed on the opponent's target to score. The lack of such an apparatus on the end is conceivably not immediately noticeable to observers or the other fencer (though they likely would) but it would render the fencer unable to score (which is not a problem since, if I recall correctly, Laertes doesn't score upon Hamlet save for once and that is illicitly during a pause in the competition). More problematic is that, since fencing is scored electricly, their is a cord that plugs into the weapon. This makes the double disarmament/sword swapping crucial to the scene rather difficult. There are many other things to consider I'm sure (I know there exist many opinions on how Shakespeare intended the sword swapping to take place, since a double disarmament is a rather non-standard occurance) but that's all that comes to mind at the moment. At the very least I hope that makes at least some aspects of modern sport fencing more clear. Good luck.

[Chris]

[quote]Originally posted by esseta:
<strong>Hello - I'm not a fencer myself. I'm writing a paper about portraying the play Hamlet in a modern setting, and a good portion of my paper will be devoted to the fencing match at the end. In the play one character secretly chooses a sharp sword instead of a dull one and poisons it to kill his opponent - how possible would that be in a modern fencing match with all of the protective gear?

any help would be appreciated.

thanks,

-esseta</strong><hr></blockquote>

I love Hamlet (the play), and I love 'what if'-ing...

If you wanted to modernize the plot, it would be easy enough for Laertes to plot his deed, fencing either epee, or sabre:
(In the interest of trying to keep true to the nature of the original as possible, I presume you'd be having them fence all three weapons, including foil, in turn, as well...)

No modern fencing blade is really stiff enough to be expected to puncture regulation fencing clothes (FIE, or conventional) that are in good repair (that's pretty much why we wear it!), unless the blade breaks, which is not the most reliably predictable occurance...

So, unless you are planning on having them throw common sense to the wind and fence half-maked, (certainly the TWO of them are pretty much 'over-the-edge' mentally, but it's less likely that the surrounding cast of characters would let them be so foolish) this requires a little 'doing'.

Although, (very) occaisionally, an electric foil blade will crack halfway through to the groove that is cut for the wire, but does not visibly look broken, or kinked, and this COULD be counted on to break with the next solid thrust, you couldn't really count on the jagged end remaining to hurt the person without a deliberate, and fairly obvious replacement.
(Laertes IS trying to get away with this, isn't he?)

Besides, a guy would have to go through a lot of blades to find one that did this, and even THEN, he would have to fence, and HIT the opponent WITHOUT making any blade contact, as the sound of the blades hitting each other would certainly be 'tell-tale'...

In sabre he could try to file some sharp places along the edges (at the end), or break off the loop at the end of the blade, thus leaving a sharpness at the end; and poison could be delivered by scratching the back hand. I don't think it likely Leartes would choose this - he would have to work pretty hard to get at the back hand without making it too obvious - or you would have to write it in that Hamlet is a little sloppy, and lets his back hand fall in front a lot, (a habit that some fairly good fencers do have - you have to decide how good Hamlet is supposed to be...), if Laertes notices, or is 'tipped off*' to this habit, he might think he can get away with it...

*(Obviously there is some discussion of how good the two of them are, and at which weapons...sounds like you have a little more research to do...)

I think you'd be better off looking into an epee action, he could poison the flat point of the push-button of the electrical tip, which, though it doesn't have a square edge, can have a chamfered edge, which leaves 2 'ridges' that at a 135 degree angle aren't exactly sharp, but can easily scrape skin, say right at the knee...

Having Laertes try to hit Hamlet in the front leg/knee area could work well: he could either catch the little gap that many fencers get between their breeches (knickers) and socks that are a tad too short, or falling down a bit (again, something that fencers of all levels are known to overlook), and draw a little blood...or, he could rely on the point actually penetrating the stocking...quite possible, but definitely less reliable; I'd go with the 'gap' method...

Unfortunately, I am not too sure how to go about acheiving the 'turn-about' - my only idea is that, since, normally, when going to a competition, we take two weapons, because they sometimes malfunction, or break (as previously discussed), so we have a spare...obviously, we are most likely refering to a side-match, not a tournament bout, but they are still likely to be having spares for the very same reasons...what with having all the 3 different weapons there, it'd easily be a dozen or so, it might make sense for Hamlet to either grab one of Laertes by accident, or, to just have borrowed it without asking...(you know how presumptuous those self-absorbed, royal-types can be...) which, as a matter of course, has also been poisoned by Leartes...

Of course that just gets the poisoned blade INTO Hamlet's hand...you THEN have to decide how to get it into Laertes! Perhaps Hamlet, having been hit in the leg/knee (which can be annoying, like you've been tricked/fooled), and not wanting to be outdone, might try to get him right back, the same way...He should probably say something like "Right back at you!" after he does this...

Given the unlikely circumstances of a modern-day Laertes actually trying to poison some one in today's era of forensic medicine, (unless you want to take it back to the late 60's), I think these scenarios are passablly viable...

My REAL problem is figuring out how to contrive the Uncle/King Cluadius' death in the aftermath...although you COULD perhaps, have Hamlet (or Laertes) prone to temper-tantrum type behavior, wherein, when losing a touch, he will whack the epee point extremely hard on the floor, and at some point in the course of events, the point (which is really a cylindrical, push-button switch, tightly screwed-on - called a barrel), will break off, or otherwise come-off by coming loose, and twisting loose...If Hamlet is giving the tantrum (he IS supposed to be manifesting some worrisome behavior - some of which is contrived, some of which is not), this would
A. give an occiasion to switch/mix up the weapons, and
B. leave a more dangerous implement available for later employment on Claudius (now THERE's a good Danish name!)... Normally, an electric epee blade even without a 'barrel', wouldn't really be considered sharp, but it IS a fairly small diameter at the end (7 millimeters, and slightly more tapered at the very, very end...), and, in the absence of any protective clothing, or substantial material, could certainly be expected to penetrate flesh with the force the enraged Hamlet would be expected to employ...People kill people with screwdrivers without too much trouble...

Hope that helps!

Let us know if you have any other questions...
Please keep us posted on your progress!
I look forward to hearing how it turns out...

Chris

[Cyranox11]

Yo
OK here is my (possibly) most plausible version: At foil, a flick to the back that is ACTUALLY aimed at the head, hitting that part of the head, which is not protected by the mask <img src="graemlins/evil3.gif" border="0" alt="[Evil 2]" />
Sydney 2000, Mens Team Foil: Final France vs China. L'Hottelier attacks and is parried in quarte. The Chinese guy (I forget his name now <img src="graemlins/dunce.gif" border="0" alt="[Dunce]" /> ) then attempts a flick riposte to the back, but hits the back of L'Hottellier's head between the mesh and the spring, splitting the skin and resulting in profuse bleeding. The match was stopped for some time whilst the doctor staunched the bleeding! If the tip had been poisoned he would have been a goner!
<img src="graemlins/evild.gif" border="0" alt="[Evil]" />

[graham]

Try reading Elizabeth Moon's book 'Change of Command' for ideas. Nothing to do with poison though. I expect she got her ideas from the Smirnoff event (acute metal poisoning delivered directly to the brain)

Unfortunately this book isn't up to par (if I am allowed a golf metaphore here) with her earlier ones but she does a reasonable job of the fencing scenes (and setting up the assassination scene alluded to above).

GT

[neevel]

A truly sharp point will penetrate even an FIE jacket + protector with ease. Ballistic fabrics have a very high tensile strength and will resist a blunt penetration (such as a handgun round), but they're not substantially more difficult to cut with a sharp edge, and a very sharp, narrow point will push through the weave of the fabric just like the ordinary needles used to sew the uniform together. The assumption with fencing weapons is that blades- maraging ones especially- are unlikely to break to a truly needle-sharp point.

Within the context of a modern electrically scored bout, it'd be next to impossible to sneak a real blade in, so you'd need to assume a dry bout. The easiest thing might be to have the venue a Classical or Historical fencing salle. On a completely different track, how about a paint-ball match where Laerte's paint-balls contain a skin-absorbed poison ?

-Dave

[Catlady]

In a real sport fencing bout, if someone changes weapons, they must test again, which would involve touching the opponent with the blade, but of course that's official competition rules. For the most part, a modern weapon is designed to cause as little damage as possible, even under the worst circumstances, and modern protective gear is pretty solid stuff, however there have been ocassions where a broken blade, will go through clothing, although it would be extremely unusual if there was any breaking of skin beyond a slight scratch. That's of course assuming it's a competition situation, and that they're wearing all their protective gear. I have heard of situations between friends where people have fooled around without complete corrective gear and half my club at least takes lessons--where the action is pretty controlled--, if not fences seriously while wearing shorts during the summer--wonderful thing about protective gear, keeps your skin mostly in one piece, but it gets hotter than Hades even in the winter. Anyway, they could theoretically be going at it after hours, with only a few witnesses and you could get away with more there. As I recall at the end of the movie By the Sword, which I've never seen, two characters go after each other with sharpened eppees. It's apparently a pretty bad movie, but it might give you some ideas.

That said however, stage fencing and sport fencing are two very different animals. Since the aim of stage fencing is the show, not the hit the point is usually not on target, and the parries are stronger. Of course, as I remember from the last time I had a theater course, no type of stage combat should be entirely realistic, anyway, because then audience stops paying attention to the show and starts worrying about whether or not the actors are really hurting each other. To counter the necessary inaccuracy, there won't be many fencers in your audience, and theater, by nature requires suspension of disbelief. As much as fencers like to complain about how staged fights, in live theater or movies, would never work in real life, if I were an audience member I'd certainly excuse a little inaccuracy.

BTW, this just gave me an interesting idea, stage a rewritten version of Hamlet centering around a salle. Could work right?

[Inquartata]

Not an answer, just my own little mini-rant: WHY do so many people feel the compulsion to "update" Shakespeare? WHAT is added by putting actors in modern clothing ( except making it easier on costumers, and guaranteeing that traditionalists will not attend the performance )or using modern speech? Are we ever treated to the spectacle of hearing Mozart concerti or Tchaikovsky symphonies performed using electric guitars and synthesizers with the pretense that this is art and not pandering to the ignorance and prejudices of modern audiences? Is there any great need to "update" the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel by putting God in a power suit and having him hand Man a cell phone? Why are masterpieces in the theater so blithely trifled with while other art forms are considered sacrosanct ( and properly so )? Is it merely to justify a greater role for Directors and Stage Managers and the prop department?

I just don't GET it...

[MikeHarm]

Why not just have them poison the opponents water bottle instead? We're always wandering away from our gear to watch other matches when when get a break from the action.

[Pommel]

Inquartata-

I don't think other artforms are as sacrosanct as you think, people have utilized the Sistine Chapel at least in jokes, and probably in serious art as well. The Mona Lisa certainly has. And classical topics have been reinterpreted, like Dali's version of the Last Supper.
Furthermore, "conservative" audiences aren't necessarily opposed to updates. The Metropolitan Opera, which could be considered at least semi-conservative in their resistence to amplification for singers etc. unlike the NYC Opera, staged a version of Verdi's _Rigoletto_ using 1920s gangsters to wide acclaim.
Art is supposed to push the envelope, and I don't see anything wrong with coming back to the masterworks for reinterpretation. Our society changes and artists will try to put masterworks in the context of our current time and place to convey the themes in ways we may lose touch with as we move further and further from being the audience those works were addressed to. Akira Kurosawa interpreted Shakespeare in his widely acclaimed films _Ran_ and _Throne of Blood_. I think the latter is one of the better film versions of the play I;ve seen, though it's certainly changed significantly in many ways because its target audience is Japanese and the interpreter is a Japanese man striving to understand Shakespeare from across cultural boundaries. Art isn't a cut and dry pursuit, it all depends on who is looking at it which makes interpretation in different ways valid.

Oh! And lighten up man!

[neevel]

Inquartata wrote:
&lt;quote&gt;
Are we ever treated to the spectacle of hearing Mozart concerti or Tchaikovsky symphonies performed using electric guitars and synthesizers with the pretense that this is art and not pandering to the ignorance and prejudices of modern audiences?
&lt;end quote&gt;

Yep-- remember Emerson, Lake, and Palmer ? I was recently unfortunate enough to be in the same room working when someone put on a copy of ELP's Greatest Hits. Man, I'd forgotten the magnitude to which ELP sucked.

In principle, though, there's nothing untouchably sacred about works of art. Playing around with established classics is a normal part of the creative process. Faust had been around in various forms for at least a couple of centuries before Goethe did his stab at it, for example. Sometimes the results are great, sometimes they aren't. "West Side Story" is a widely acknowledged classic in it's own right; that Leonardo DiCaprio Romeo & Juliet from few years ago was a pretentious mess-- they both were the same, older classic re-told.

-Dave

[Pommel]

Oh, and just one thing to note as well: Shakespeare's stories are not original by any stretch of the imagination. Romeo and Juliet is based upon an Italian novel I believe. Although I've heard this I really don't know enough about it to say anything further. Perhaps somebody else on the board knows more.

[three_hundred_fifty_five]

Hello - I'm not a fencer myself.
Good.

I'm writing a paper about portraying the play Hamlet in a modern setting, and a good portion of my paper will be devoted to the fencing match at the end.
Whoop dee doo.

In the play one character secretly chooses a sharp sword instead of a dull one and poisons it to kill his opponent - how possible would that be in a modern fencing match with all of the protective gear?

It wouldn't be possible.


any help would be appreciated.

Come up with some scheme to bring about the death.

thanks,

-esseta
You're welcome.

[Inquartata]

OK, so perhaps I DID go a bit overboard. However, I am still not entirely mollified.

I don't have any problem with intentional reinventions of established works of art, or even of parodies. I enjoyed "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead" and "Shakespeare in Love" as much as anyone---and Kurosawa, too. What I have the problem with is just trying to trick out a work to make its appearance, and not its substance, different for the sake of being different. I mean, do we really learn anything we didn't know before by seeing a Moliere play set in the American Old West, or Hamlet in a Nazi bunker, or "The Trojan Women" on Mars in the 23rd century? Think that Branagh's "Much Ado About Nothing" was made any bettermerely by virtue of the fact that it was done in 19th century garb? Would it have been hurt by setting it in the time and place it's author intended?

Kurosawa at least had the grace to change just about everything but the basic plots of the plays he filmed. And hey, it's been said that there are really only four stories in the world, all else being interpretation and complexity. Even Shakespeare did that, as you said, Pommel ["The Tragical Historye of Romeus and Juliet" just for one good example. But he redid the play, and wrote all new dialogue ( the hardest part, I think, of a playwright's craft ), and didn't just put it in Elizabethan clothes, as it were.

Bah, I'm still not explaining my objections well, I see. Bother.

I guess I just don't see anything much being added to other sorts of masterpieces. You can do the Monty Python version of paintings, but you aren't altering the paintings. You can write "Bored of the Rings", but you aren't just taking Tolkien and putting its exact action, dialogue and characters into a modern milieu. You are in these cases actually creating something new, I think, not just repainting the scenery. But somehow with Shakespeare it's ALL about the scenery, all to many times...

BTW, I have to say this about "West Side Story", Neevel---I know it's been widely hailed as a marvel---I know the music is great---but as far as Shakespearean interpretations go, well---"the Emperor has no clothes!" ( It had to be said! )

OK, maybe it didn't, but what the heck!

[kms]

Inquartata,

There are two major replies to your protest, and one of them is just a subset of the other, so that leaves one reply left

What you are talking about does not have to do with Shakespeare and people's treatment of him, but with theater, and the nature of it as opposed to the nature of other artforms.

Paintings, novels, even films, are not performed. They are complete works in their own right which do not require a fresh set of living artists to interpret them in order for them to communicate their experience.

Theater, however, and classical music, demand an interpretation, a staging. Shakespeare did write in Elizabethan times, but his plays range the gamut from ancient Egypt, early Anglo-Saxon Briatin, through medieval Italy and up to his own times. And at the end of the day what the plays consist of are _manuscripts_. Not costumes, not scenography. Manuscripts. Modern people have to come up with all the rest to make it come alive.

The thing is, modern people aren't Elizabethan people. We're _very_ different. Even though Shakespeare's plays strike us as universal, and certainly they contain universal truths, the way they were performed then is probably going to be a bit strange for us 21st century types. We have to perform them _our_ way, and one (of course this is only one) way of doing that is casting them in a new setting to illuminate the play from a different point of view and thereby give it, hopefully, a relevance we didn't see it had before.

This is the beauty of theater! It can be refreshed and replayed ad infinitum. It remains a classic solid manuscript but it can always be reinvented with the voice of the modern day.

Oh, and you wouldn't believe what they did to Shakespeare in the 18th and 19th century. Try King Lear with a bizarrely hacked happy ending.

And speaking of King Lear: I am a coxcomb. <img src="graemlins/jester.gif" border="0" alt="[Jester]" />

--Knut

[Inquartata]

[quote]Originally posted by kms:
<strong>
There are two major replies to your protest, and one of them is just a subset of the other, so that leaves one reply left </strong>

Heh, just as long as it doesn't involve one finger or rude noises!

<strong>What you are talking about does not have to do with Shakespeare and people's treatment of him, but with theater, and the nature of it as opposed to the nature of other artforms.</strong>

And yet, I think that he is the most assiduously attended to in this regard. I can't ever remember seeing Ibsen's works thus treated. Never seen "Glass Menagerie" or "Salesman" or "Mice and Men" set in Oz or Carthage or even Japan...

<strong>
Paintings, novels, even films, are not performed. They are complete works in their own right which do not require a fresh set of living artists to interpret them in order for them to communicate their experience. Theater, however, and classical music, demand an interpretation, a staging.</strong>


Ah so des! In other words, we don't have to reckon with the...let us be candid...sometimes sizeable egos of actors and directors?

OTOH, there is music---where, again ( neevel's example to the contrary notwithstanding ) the NY Phil doesn't seem any too interested in presenting, say, "Cosi Fan Tutti" with a hip-hop flavor. No tribal Mendelssohn, no salsa Bach. All those musicians add a certain amount of interpretation, to be sure---though I for one am at a loss to distinguish most of the supposed nuances between differing performances of Beethoven's "Pastoral" by this orchestra/conductor as opposed to the other that the musicologists brangle about...

<strong>
Shakespeare did write in Elizabethan times, but his plays range the gamut from ancient Egypt, early Anglo-Saxon Briatin, through medieval Italy and up to his own times. And at the end of the day what the plays consist of are _manuscripts_. Not costumes, not scenography. Manuscripts. Modern people have to come up with all the rest to make it come alive.</strong>

Yes, and I've no quarrel with setting his plays as they "should" have been, instead of incongruously in Elizabethan garb. One of the best performances of "the Scottish play" I've ever seen was replete with proto-Scottish costumes, arms and armor. But again, what is really added by trading one incongruity for another? To use the Branagh example again ( I realize it was film, strictly speaking, and not stage ): did using 19th century Italian clothes and settings make his "Much Ado" that much more comprehensible to modern audiences than 16th century ones would have done? I mean, the performances were wonderful, but would they have been swamped by period costuming? ( And I note that "Shakespeare in Love" did very well with modern audiences, despite not utilizing Gucci suits...


<strong>Oh, and you wouldn't believe what they did to Shakespeare in the 18th and 19th century. Try King Lear with a bizarrely hacked happy ending.</strong>

I don't want to know! "Ignorance is bliss", in truth, sometimes!

<hr></blockquote>

Sorry if any of this sounds sarcastic or acidulous, I didn't mean it to be so. My little rant has turned into something of a stimulating discussion, surprisingly, and I know my style can come off a bit dismissive and, ah, well, snide. It doesn't come out of my brain that way, though! Is a puzzlement...

<img src="graemlins/blah.gif" border="0" alt="[Blah]" />

[kms]

Inquartata,

Don't worry, you don't sound the least bit snide or dismissive! Let me know if I do; it can remarkably hard to come off as polite and well-thought-out in this medium.

In reference to Ibsen, Miller, and Williams: neither have I seen them thus treated (but I know they have been, particularly Ibsen). First off, they are all for the most part realists, unlike Shakespeare whose language and to a degree plots are about as unrealistic as it gets. As realists, they have also included stage directions which one is loathe to ignore. Second, they are all much closer to our own time so we don't yet feel the freedom or, for that matter, the distance we feel in regard to Shakespeare. And third: dammit, Ibsen _should_ be placed in some other contexts for once. Being from his home country, I've seen so many dead dull 19th century realist performances it makes me sick. Peer Gynt, Brandt, Hedda Gabler, all of them could be lifted to new and fascinating places by an innovative staging.

Re: Music. Music is also an unjust comparison, because interpretations of music simply don't allow the same freedom as interpretations of stage plays, particularly older plays which don't have stage directions written in. You _can't_ play Mozart as a Samba because that would be changing the music itself. A fairer comparison would be opera and ballet, where again staging is open. And some of the strongest ballet going on is classical ballet pieces recast in a more modern choreography, which is freer to express a number of things compared to the traditional French-court-inspired-niceties.

But now I think specific examples must be discussed.

I do in fact think the 19th century Much Ado was a success, because it was made during a whole rash of 19th century costume dramas -- Sense and Sensibility, Jane Eyre, etc. -- so that the audience was 'in the mode' and more receptive to this period than others. Unfortunately, the 19th century _Hamlet_ was disastrous, but that's as much the directing as the 19th century bit itself. And don't get me started on Branagh's Love's Labour's Lost.

Other more succesful examples, though: I know Baz Luhrmann's "Romeo and Juliet" (the one with DiCaprio) was earlier in the thread called a "pretentious mess," but as far as I'm concerned it's a film of absolute brilliance. Medieval trappings often blind us to a whole slew of emotions which we are able to read in a modern cast, and by bringing in all our fears over gang wars and "out-of-control youth" he nailed home just how painful the whole story is.

Likewise I have to say Ian MacKellen's 1930's Richard III is stunning. Again, the fascistic semi-Nazi symbolism which still so terrifying to us speaks volumes about Richard's evil, and of course insecurities.

So that's my view. Disagree at will. Maybe the next will be portraying Othello's 'otherness' by making him a three-eyed alien. <img src="graemlins/freak2.gif" border="0" alt="[Freak]" />

[peircer]

[quote] Yep-- remember Emerson, Lake, and Palmer ? I was recently unfortunate enough to be in the same room working when someone put on a copy of ELP's Greatest Hits. Man, I'd forgotten the magnitude to which ELP sucked.

<hr></blockquote>

Remember them? I was unfortunate enough to have seen them live a few years ago, even though I didn't know who they were. I've never been so bored in my life...

[HilandDoug]

Being a former theatre major in college, I have really enjoyed this thread! I have refrained from participation, though, until now. And I will limit my participation to saying:

Don't knock my boy Branagh! When I was waiting in line to see "Much Ado About Nothing", everyone coming out of the theatre was pointing at me. When I saw the movie, I realized why! He looks just like ME!