Have you ever watched a movie with expensive cars in it, or a very plausible space ship interior? Ever wondered what it cost to the film makers to have the expensive car in the film being driven around, abused and even wrecked, or the space ship interior being build? Have you ever seen a movie set in the middle ages with an even remotely plausible set of armour in it? I am not talking about Game of Thrones, or the Lord of the Rings as accurate descriptions of medieval history. But movies set on some particular date from actual history. I have seen some, that could pass, if one was not very knowledged in medieval armour and with the understandable suspense of disbelief in any movies. But most seem to have these terrible pieces of armour bought from the sale at the cheapest costume shop in the internet, and all the medieval people including the armoured knights and men-at-arms seem like they woke up in a dump, wearing rags and scrap metal attached to leather around their bodies. Why? Are the production values for medieval movies lesser than any other sort of movies?
Here is a short film, about the mobility of armour, with a couple of very good reproductions of accurately brightly polished 15th century armour and a couple of the most simple of historical techniques actually found in contemporary sources. Notice also how they demonstrate the fact, that hitting the armour with a sword is a wasted effort:
Any number of sports cars in movies are a lot more expensive than a good quality reproduction of a suit of armour is – that one can find from the markets these days. Why is it then, that movie makers do not invest in this, even when they are making a movie about medieval times with seemingly big budget? Because the audience does not know what an armour should look like? Because the movie makers and the audience expect medieval times to be dark, damp, ragged and dirty? I have no idea what the interior of a future space ship should look like. Do you? But it is obvious, that when the movie makers want the audience to have that particular suspense of disbelief to set in instinctively, they put a lot of effort and money into making the set seem plausible, and not just something they found from a garbage dump.
Perhaps, the problem is, that people do expect certain things from a sports car, space ship interior, and alas an armour in a movie. That previous movies have set the example, that forms much more so, than the actual reality, what to expect. Like the fact, that in movies a car is supposed to explode when it plunges from the road? Or a space ship interior is supposed to have the captain’s seat in the middle of the room? Armour of the bad guys is supposed to be made out of riveted black leather?
The other reason might – just might – be, that the film makers, directors, art directors, costumers and all, have no clue as to what armour really looked like and any remotely sword shaped piece of scrap metal, passes as an actual sword. It seems also, that they have no real interrest to even bother to find out. But why not? Would not a film about fast cars be more applauded, if it did not have the typical movie mistakes, like bursting into flame when all the wheels are off ground? Or a space ship interior presented as no-one had seen one before, for example the captain’s seat in the roof upside down, or something? After all, in space there is no gravity to hold the crew on some common floor and digital graphics can work wonders. What about a totally new concept of making a medieval movie and finding out what the alledged period really looked like and investing in better quality of armour, weapons, and fight coreographs who actually know something about medieval fencing? Why would that be too hard? These items and people are around. If you ever need any and do not know how to find them, contact me.
I do realize that the purpose of films is to satisfy the public at large, who do not know how easily a motorcar explodes. Who expect a space ship interior to be just so as in Star Trek and countless films after it first appeared. Who think they “know”, that the medieval armour is clumsy, bulky and dull, and fights look exactly like the mad hacking, or kung fu jumps in their video games. However, would it not serve the movie, as a piece of art work to stand out from the mass, to promote it widely in the eyes of people who are actually interrested in the subject, be it cars, space ships, or medieval times, that the enthusiasts of the subject would notice the effort to quality? Especially these days, when word gets around in the social media and as such it can serve as advertisment and promote the sale of tickets. Would it not ultimately even serve the egoes of the directors and others responsible, that they actually achieved quality?
I for one am quite sure, that if the general public would even once see a medieval movie, with some high quality reproduction armour and nifty fencing moves taken straigth from the actual medieval fencing manuals, even the most ignorant of the audience would be impressed. It might go against some of their pre-set biases, but seeing is believing, and it might be a box office hit as well. Well, if the film was any good otherwise, anyway…
Do you have an example of a good medieval movie in wich the armour and/or fighting was plausible?
World's Pain 
October 18, 2015 at 2:18 pm
Excalibur was pretty good, in my opinion.
October 18, 2015 at 2:21 pm
October 19, 2015 at 1:54 pm
Thanks for the beautiful clip. An impressive scene indeed.
As you can see the dudes are in a fight without their helmets. A common thing in films, because the audience has to recognize their heroes and villains, even in movies set in more recent times.
The helm is a hot thing to wear, and encased in armour the body gets very hot very soon, if one moves around in rapid pace. No, wonder the ancient Greeks thought that the brain is a mere cooling element for exessive body heat… As everyone knew, that the sould lives in the heart.
October 19, 2015 at 1:48 pm
Oh, Excalibur is one of my very favourite movies. However, though it is set in Britain, that is not really any historical time frame, but rather a mythical Britain. In that sense it is not quite as much fantasy as the Lord of the Rings, but still closer to it, than historical fiction.
The armour in it is more impressive, than in most medieval period movies, but still it is fantasy armour. Exellent fantasy armour as in the pre-mentioned Lord of the Rings, but not really historical.
King Arthur is a similar mythical character to for example Jesus, and a film about Arthur could very well try to depict the assumed date and culture of 5th century Britain, but I really like the choise made by the makers of Excalibur to film rather the myth, than to mix the historical reality and supernatural elements in the story. I suppose that is actually more responsible, if the choise was aware, to not strengthen the universal misconception of supernatural events having really happened in the past history.
October 18, 2015 at 3:40 pm
It boils down to having an epic sword fight versus having a realistic combat depiction. From whatever I’ve read about the Medieval period, the goal of sword fighting was to get the combat over as fast as possible. While one has a good range of movement in armor, it is walking around with extra weight on. It’s also why you saw a lot of depictions of knocking the other guy over; get him on his back, and he’s pretty much helpless.
That’s decidedly un-cinematic. Audiences expect the clang of steel on steel, the banter between foes, and laughing while jumping off of things. Nobody wants to watch a 5-second sword fight where the main hero knocks the villain to the ground.
October 19, 2015 at 2:35 pm
You are right, the goal of the sword fight, like any actual serious fight, is to reach the favourable conclusion as fast as possible. It may not necessarily mean, that the fighters are in a rush, but they may even wait for the opportune moment for quite the while, but when they move, they often do it with such speed, that even the expert, not to mention audience at large may have hard time to keep up to what exactly happened. Not very different as to why we have slowmotion camera runs in some sports. No, I am not suggesting slowmotion to movie fight scenes, though it is not unheard of. But rather the professional choises on camera angles, cutting and a bit of movie magic, so to speak.
Besides, in medieval fencing, like in all forms of close combat correct timing is much more crucial than speed. This applies to films as well for the audience. In my experience the fight scenes far too often tend to be extended so long, that the audience may even lose interrest and get bored. Have you seen the Battle of the Five Armies? The fights and violence in a good film is about tension, and threat of violence, fear of the unexpected and so forth. It may also be about the level of skill and some sense of justice, but if the scene is too long, the audience gets numb even about the most acrobatic and seemingly superhuman feats. In good movies, tensions are made before the actual fights and the fight is there to relieve the tension.
We have a proverb in Finnish, *tieto lisää tuskaa*, that roughly translated says, that increased information increases suffering. In this case it would refer to the fact that when you learn how realistic combat happens, the movie versions do not seem as epic any longer, but more like sadly ludicurous.
However, I think that the audiences regardless of their understandable ignorance on medieval swordplay are able to recognize quality in efficiency and a skilled film crew and editors should be able to make the fight appear as effective and realistic. This difference can be seen in films about modern warfare, why not medieval?
Audiences can be taught to expect what ever. However, I have wittnessed first hand in many a different issues, how people make the distinction. In living history events, where people have been able to see both the cinematic/cartoonish versions of medieval swords, fighting techniques, armour, ships, cuttlery and many other things, that they have been prepaired by popular culture to expect and compare those to quality reproductions, their reactions are often delightfull. Some individuals are so incultured by the popular culture imagery, that they really percieve the most silliest versions as the real thing. Then there is very little one can do to help them. Most though, seem perfectly able to respect the better versions when they are given the opportunity. – At least as long as they have not invested their identity on the cartoonish versions.
This gives me hope, that most people – given the opportunity – are also able to make the distinction between reality, truth and imaginary stuff even in bigger issues, than just film industry. 😉 You know what I mean?
October 19, 2015 at 4:39 pm
I am quite familiar with how perceived notions of fighting are seen as “more real” than actual historical records. My little brother served in the Army National Guard, and so he had to go through basic training. He trained to use an M-16 assault rifle, which included firing the weapon and caring for the weapon.
He told me a story of how he was visiting friends while on leave, and they wanted to play first person shooter video games. The game featured the M-16 rifle, and it bothered my brother how inaccurate it was in the game. His friends tried telling him that the video game was more realistic, despite never even having touched a real version of the weapon.
So, what you’re talking about translates across many different fields of understanding, and sadly is not limited to Medieval warfare.
October 23, 2015 at 6:25 am
Oh yes, assault rifles and swords are items that I have trained to use and this has led me to a position in wich these items in video games and movies tend to stretch my suspension of disbelief. Video games and movies are allready full of stuff that demand some level of suspension of disbelief, but when they appear sloppy, that takes it away.
Medieval warfare just happens to be my field of interrest. I do not expect the grand audience ever to learn all the finesse included. It is not that crucial and people get so very wrong much more important and even simpler stuff. However, it annoys me, that while the information is out there, one would expect the people trying to make the illusion of swords or assault rifles more plausible, by researching into the actual information.
When I served in the army, we were once watching movies on our spare time. A class room in the barracks full of tired soldiers staring blank at the screen showing Rambo II. There is a scene in wich he fires a RPG at the Russian helicopter. – Through the windscreen of his own chopper! His own helicopter is full of prisoners he just rescued from the Vietnamese. Somebody in the audience just said with a very dry voice: “Safety perimeter 200 meters.” Everybody laughed out loud and the laughter did not end before the movie was over. In reality the launching fire from the rocket of the RPG would have fried Rambo, the helicopter and the passangers…
The thing is, the audiences realize more about the falsehoods in movies, than the makers make believe to themselves. It is annoying when they take short cuts and it makes the movies seem that much sloppier.
On the other hand, Rambo II had a lot more unrealistic concepts in it than a good number of unrealistic weapon usage, like the entire concept of a lone pumped up man rescuing prisoners of war from Vietnam in the eighties. If the movie would have been more realistic and plausible about guns, would it have been even more convincing in transmitting political ideals and made up unhistorical concepts? It certainly tried to make war look like heroics, and that as a cumulative property of any number of fiction from books to movies and games is a seriously dangerous ideal to be offered to adventure seeking youth, or the voter.
October 22, 2015 at 11:17 am
Or how about a 15th century movie showing the guys in chain mail? Or visa versa? Probably some of the best stuff I’ve seen in a made for TV documentary was made using some friends of mine and their own armor. Cheaper that way.
October 23, 2015 at 6:39 am
I certainly would very much like to see it. What is the name of the group of your friends? Do they have a website? What was the name of the documentary? Can any of it be found on youtube?
There are some very good TV documentaries about the medieval period out there, but there are also rather terrible entertainment posing as documentaries. Sometimes it seems like people have hard time to make the distinction. Have you noticed? The History channel for example is notorious for cheap, unhistorical lookalikes, in their dramatizations. Often the very best dramatizations come from hiring a living history group committed to the period in question. The more specific time frame the group has, the better is the quality of their kit.