NOTE IMDb
6,4/10
1,8 k
MA NOTE
Ajouter une intrigue dans votre langueAn elderly man named Max comes to the famous fencing coach Villar and asks to take him on as a coach. But the coach does not like his weapon technique, and he only takes Max as a cleaner.An elderly man named Max comes to the famous fencing coach Villar and asks to take him on as a coach. But the coach does not like his weapon technique, and he only takes Max as a cleaner.An elderly man named Max comes to the famous fencing coach Villar and asks to take him on as a coach. But the coach does not like his weapon technique, and he only takes Max as a cleaner.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
Avis à la une
Normally, I like Leonard Maltin and can sympathise with his reviews but he seems to have watched a different film here entirely. It is not really a revenge story, "by-the-numbers" or otherwise. There is a man with a mission here but cheap vengeance isn't his goal. The leads do an excellent job of portraying antagonistic personalities coming slowly to the boil in the claustrophobic world of the fencing salon as the characters evolve. And they do evolve.
As for Errol Flynn doing it better, that is a fatuous comment in the extreme. Apart from his swordfight on the beach with Basil Rathbone in "Captain Blood", his fencing always looked very stagy to me. The last fight in "By the Sword", by contrast, is the single most vicious fencing combat I've ever seen. It is the only time I have ever had the impression that the combatants actually intend to kill one another. A brilliantly choreographed sequence.
As for Errol Flynn doing it better, that is a fatuous comment in the extreme. Apart from his swordfight on the beach with Basil Rathbone in "Captain Blood", his fencing always looked very stagy to me. The last fight in "By the Sword", by contrast, is the single most vicious fencing combat I've ever seen. It is the only time I have ever had the impression that the combatants actually intend to kill one another. A brilliantly choreographed sequence.
Hey, so the fencing is a bit hokey. The movie is "not" about fencing, if it were we would all be asleep in 10 minutes. I have fenced on and off for over 30 years so I know a little bit about it. I would rather watch something like this than any fencing bout ever put on. So all you purists out there, lighten up. Like the movie for what it is, don't dis-like it for what it isn't. The story was not about fencing, the fencing was only a backdrop to the story.
There is not blood in this movie. The title of my comment has to do with the fact that, were it not for the blood, any contemporary Olympic style fencer could beat the tar out of a 16th or 17th Century duellist. The skills of a contemporary fencer are unmatchable; but the will to kill is something you cannot pick up in a fencing salle.
This difference plays a role in the story, as characters come to grips with their personal traumas and inner demons. The original movie One-Sheet is informative for the Spartan purity of its text:
.......By The Sword......
Live by it ..... Die by it .....
The folks who pule and whine about the "safety" issues in this film are as confoundingly ignorant of the definition of "metaphor" as are the historical purists who insist on mewling about the Russian roulette sequence in "Deer Hunter." This is not a documentary, so it simply beggars the imagination why anyone would be so ruthlessly misguided as to hold it up to documentary standards of factual accuracy.
This movie is a classic morality tale -- and a nicely crafted one at that -- told within the strictures of a fencing salle. Abrams and Roberts give fine performances, while Mia Sara, Chris Rydell, Elaine Kagan and others provide good support. The movie, for all of its obvious mythological framework, offers some nice insights into the reality of fencing. For example, when was the last time you saw an Errol Flynn movie devote so much attention to the *footwork* of sword play? (And for you non-fencers out there, here is a clue: fencing is *ALL* in the footwork; the sword is just there to let the other person know that they lost the bout.) At the level of world-class competition, the differences between life/death and win/lose engagements blur; personal trauma can blur them even more. It is only in confronting our demons that the distinctions return to us, and the genuinely meaningful things in life can be regained. That is why this film is a morality tale.
Filmatically, the cinematography bears some attention: so many subtle hues of brown that pop out rather than disappear under the surface. Bill Conti's score, particularly as it emphasizes classical guitar, is a joy all by itself. The images of stair-cases and the allegory of Jacob's Ladder appear throughout.
This difference plays a role in the story, as characters come to grips with their personal traumas and inner demons. The original movie One-Sheet is informative for the Spartan purity of its text:
.......By The Sword......
Live by it ..... Die by it .....
The folks who pule and whine about the "safety" issues in this film are as confoundingly ignorant of the definition of "metaphor" as are the historical purists who insist on mewling about the Russian roulette sequence in "Deer Hunter." This is not a documentary, so it simply beggars the imagination why anyone would be so ruthlessly misguided as to hold it up to documentary standards of factual accuracy.
This movie is a classic morality tale -- and a nicely crafted one at that -- told within the strictures of a fencing salle. Abrams and Roberts give fine performances, while Mia Sara, Chris Rydell, Elaine Kagan and others provide good support. The movie, for all of its obvious mythological framework, offers some nice insights into the reality of fencing. For example, when was the last time you saw an Errol Flynn movie devote so much attention to the *footwork* of sword play? (And for you non-fencers out there, here is a clue: fencing is *ALL* in the footwork; the sword is just there to let the other person know that they lost the bout.) At the level of world-class competition, the differences between life/death and win/lose engagements blur; personal trauma can blur them even more. It is only in confronting our demons that the distinctions return to us, and the genuinely meaningful things in life can be regained. That is why this film is a morality tale.
Filmatically, the cinematography bears some attention: so many subtle hues of brown that pop out rather than disappear under the surface. Bill Conti's score, particularly as it emphasizes classical guitar, is a joy all by itself. The images of stair-cases and the allegory of Jacob's Ladder appear throughout.
I thought this movie was very good for several reasons. The first was that the plot was woven very well around a sport that does not receive much attention, fencing. I know very little about fencing but this was a good introduction. It is almost an artform, and the aura of the training school added another dimension. Having novices being taught fencing allowed the viewer to pick up on the basics.
Secondly was the casting. Eric Roberts in my opinion is one of the best actors going around and pairing him up with F. Murray Abraham, you really can't go wrong acting wise. The supporting cast was merely there to add to the plot and to help develop some atmosphere.
Without giving too much away, this is a movie about revenge that chips away at the start through flashbacks but builds to an inevitable but pulsing showdown. Eric Roberts plays the part of an egotistical past fencing champion and present training supremo. F Murray Abraham is a man with a hidden past, linked to fencing that you feel must come out sooner or later.
The action scenes involving fencing were admirable and while people take acting for granted, for both the afore mentioned actors to handle foils as they did would indicate they had some previous understanding of the sport.
I don't think I am giving too much away by saying F. Murray Abrahams character Max, in addition to attempting to break in as a fencing instructor is also taking cautious steps in trying to establish relationship ties after being incarcerated for a very long period.
All in all a very pleasing time filler, that also exhibited the hustle and bustle of the city it was filmed in, despite most of the action taking place inside the training school for aspiring fencers.
Secondly was the casting. Eric Roberts in my opinion is one of the best actors going around and pairing him up with F. Murray Abraham, you really can't go wrong acting wise. The supporting cast was merely there to add to the plot and to help develop some atmosphere.
Without giving too much away, this is a movie about revenge that chips away at the start through flashbacks but builds to an inevitable but pulsing showdown. Eric Roberts plays the part of an egotistical past fencing champion and present training supremo. F Murray Abraham is a man with a hidden past, linked to fencing that you feel must come out sooner or later.
The action scenes involving fencing were admirable and while people take acting for granted, for both the afore mentioned actors to handle foils as they did would indicate they had some previous understanding of the sport.
I don't think I am giving too much away by saying F. Murray Abrahams character Max, in addition to attempting to break in as a fencing instructor is also taking cautious steps in trying to establish relationship ties after being incarcerated for a very long period.
All in all a very pleasing time filler, that also exhibited the hustle and bustle of the city it was filmed in, despite most of the action taking place inside the training school for aspiring fencers.
Okay, so some scenes in this film might make a fencer cringe, but for the average viewer there is good entertainment to be had here. The central characters do the job required to keep the action going, although Eric Roberts character is somewhat of a cardboard cutout. The script allows for little character development for his fencing master portrayal, and I suspect he has simply done exactly what the director asked. The fencing scenes are decent action,with some interesting swordplay in foreground while mental fencing goes on between the characters. The plot is fairly simple, and some of the developments in the plot do seem to a little unsubstantiated. But this is not a film to make you cry or think deeply. It is good, simple, entertainment. Watch with an open mind, and enjoy a bit of fun.
Le saviez-vous
- Citations
Fencing Student: You never taught me that!
Alexander Villard: You can't teach surprise.
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
- How long is By the Sword?Alimenté par Alexa
Détails
Box-office
- Montant brut aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 6 220 $US
- Week-end de sortie aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 4 078 $US
- 26 sept. 1993
- Montant brut mondial
- 6 220 $US
- Durée1 heure 31 minutes
- Couleur
- Mixage
- Rapport de forme
- 2.35 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant