-
Title
-
XVI. Directing : Halting the Phrase (2)
-
Date
-
May 27, 1937
-
volume
-
2
-
issue
-
9
-
page start
-
4
-
page end
-
5
-
content
-
en
XVI. DIRECTING
Halting the Phrase (2)
One of our correspondents, Dr. Henry J. Zettleman of Northwestern University, writes me in commentary of the article which appeared in The Riposte of February 25, 1937, where in I spoke of the "quick halt" of the phrase. He says: "It seems to me that to call a halt as quickly as you apparently advise makes 'built-up' attacks nearly impossible. Under that system a planned 'short-Attack' with a parry of the riposte and counter-riposte, would certainly run the risk of dying a premature and possibly undeserved death. Directing would be more difficult to be sure, but we must suit the Director to the fencing and not the fencing to the Director."
Two items in his letter seem to me to deserve more extended treatment. First, the question of attacks of second intention which I mentioned in my last article (March 26, 1937), should be discussed more at length. Second, the Director's control of the fencing, or vice-versa, is an interesting subject which requires careful study.
First, then, how can you, as a Director, tell whether an attack is intended to score directly, or on the counter-riposte? Because, if you will recall my words of caution in the last article, I did warn you that "halt" must be delayed to permit an attack of second intention to score.
Partly, the quality of the fencing will determine your ability to do so. The best fencing today is keyed to a fast tempo and its actions are decisive, clean-cut. In this type of competition, indecisive delays or "breaks" in the phrase entitle you to call halt at once. I am now confining my remarks to directing the foil, and will postpone consideration of possible modifications in the other weapons to a later date.
Let us then suppose that you see the attacker, in the best European style, throw his whole power into an initial attack, so that he is nearly off-balance. In an overwhelming percentage of the cases, his very action precludes the possibility of a second intention — at least against good opposition. Therefore, you are justified in calling "halt" on the riposte. Likewise, when a defender throws "all he has" into a riposte, you can be reasonably sure that he was not waiting to score on the second counter-riposte. The attacker, in the first case, if he fails on the attack, can only hope to prevent the riposte; the action is over, and he is usually unable to counter-riposte except after a definite "break" of time.
Needless to say, not all fencing is built on these actions. Suppose that, as Dr. Zettleman says, a "short" attack is made, with the intention of scoring on the counter-riposte. You are watching the play of the blades. You should do more. You should, as I have recommended before, "fence" mentally with both contestants. You should watch their methods much in the same way as you would if you were fencing against them on the strip. Now, tell me, in your position as director, can't you tell a "short" attack from a direct attack?
If you watch carefully, you will see that the fencer who makes the "short" attack, does not go in as far as he would on a direct hit. You can tell that the point does not reach as deeply as would be required to score — you can perhaps see that the lunge is not sufficiently long to reach. In other words, you should be able to see that the attack is intentionally "short". If the fencing is good, that should mean instantaneously that a counter-riposte is in mind and you must delay your "halt" accordingly.
But this is relatively easy. With the top-notch European fencers, the problem is far more difficult. They seldom make obvious short attacks because the defender seldom takes the bait. More frequently, the first attack is so decisive, so exactly like a real attack, that the defender is compelled to riposte in the desired line, where he has been "frozen" into a habitual pattern of reaction. In such cases, the attack, parry, riposte, parry and counter-riposte, are rapidly and continuously executed, the attacker dominating the play without the momentary "break" or delay which would justify the director in stopping the phrase.
In the rare but notable cases in this country, where the attack of second intention is so executed, the problem of the director is more difficult, but the solution is possible. I will give you some personal views on the subject, involving some theoretical analysis.
Fundamentally, the success of the attack of second intention hinges upon obtaining the desired riposte from the defender. Against inexperienced opposition, or if one is a fool for luck a fencer may try to "anticipate" the riposte in the desired line, and the counter-riposte continuously as required in the phrase. But against good opposition, the attacker must compel the desired riposte.
Now, a good opponent will seldom riposte unless he feels secure in his first parry. If he has failed to find the blade clearly, he will often delay his riposte, or retreat and take another parry. Under such circumstances, the attacker cannot provoke the desired response, and the attack of second intention to score on the counter-riposte must fail.
Consequently, if you are watching carefully, you will notice that when the attacker wants to score on the counter-riposte he will try to create a situation which permits the defender to riposte. Nearly always, there is one way for you to discover the ulterior motives of the attacker. A fencer attacking with second intention will usually make his first attack into a line where the defender parries well. Keep your eyes open when a good fencer attacks into his opponent’s best or surest parry. If he intended a direct hit, he would proceed otherwise. Therefore, watch the tempo and watch the general character of each fencer’s game.
The same observations apply to the remise or redoublement of attack as part of a well-conceived plan. Suppose you were fencing a man who delays his riposte or who opens his line after the parry. The opportunity would be there for you to remise or redouble, and you would take it swiftly and continuously after the attack. Likewise, when you are directing, you have the same opportunity to observe the habits of each contestant, and you will see that there is a good opening against such a fencer for a planned remise or redoublement of attack. Then you will recognize the action when it comes, and you will time your "halt" so as to permit it to score.
Perhaps you will tell me that this is a superhuman job, and I will agree with you that it is not an easy one. Yet, it seems to me that the success of the best European directors lies largely in their uncanny ability to diagnose the plays, not only as to their mechanical execution but also as to the psychological tactics underlying them.
What I am telling you now is that in order to be a good director you have to fence very well—not necessarily in an actual bout, but with your mind. You must be able to fence both men mentally while you are directing, if you are to do the best possible job. Many of the greatest directors have been top-notch fencers. Some of them have never been good competitors, because it takes more than brains to make a first-class fencer; you need some physical attributes. But in all cases, the quality which makes for good directing is mental: a sound knowledge of the game and the ability to understand the tactics as well as the mechanics of fencing. Not everybody can be a champion on the strip. But a man who has a reasonable quick eye, an analytical turn of mind, and a willingness to absorb all the technical knowledge within his reach, can be a first-class director by learning to fence with his brain.
I have purposely presented to you first the difficulty which arises when you have to direct top-notch competition. Now what about the lower brackets of ability? Suppose that the fencers are not capable of making the swift, decisive actions which are so desirable...are they to be shackled by the theories of directing that I have expounded? Are they not entitled to score on counter-ripostes because they happen to fence in slower tempo? I hope to discuss this second point in my next article.
M. A.de C.
