Lock 'em up!

In the course of any script with aggressive characters, you're bound to come across a moment when one character needs to control another. Now if you're doing Oscar Wilde for example, chances are that control is gained through the generous application of ascerbic commentary, caustic dialogue and flippant ripostes. All of which, when well performed, is marvelous to behold. British flavored devastation abounds.

But... since I'm not writing a blog about exploring the subtle effects of wit on a character's psyche, I'm more concerned with those scripts where one character physically controls another through - you guessed it - (fake) violence!

More specifically, how does one actor gain apparent physical control of another actor? And more important to me, how do we keep it looking realistic without tearing each other apart?

In the real world, those of us not hopped to the gills on PCP (and you know who you are) can be controlled through pain. That's what joint locks can do for example - your joints are locked by someone or something and biomechanically, you just can't move 'em. Or maybe you can, but the degree of pain and damage to the joint that any movement will cause is a sufficient deterrent to keep you immobile. Real joint locks are frequently effective because for example we twist the arm in a direction it doesn't usually go all that easily and couple that movement with conflicting pressures. Bend the arm in the right (or wrong in this case) direction, apply pressure and and you've got control - ahh the joys of the arm bar. Unfounded rumor says there's a guy who can disable an assault helicopter with the correct techniques.

In stage combat though, doing this to a fellow actor will result in a lot of bad bad things. As a result, we usually see controls on stage that are very safe, and to be honest in all but the worst cases, they're being sold exceptionally well by the actors - a great deal of faked pain. But anyone with a rudimentary understanding of actual combat wonders why the actor who is being controlled hasn't done something to get out of it.

When I've seen controls being employed in the last few years, I almost invariably see the classic "hammerlock." There's a reason for that - it's what we've seen cops on TV do for eons, it's easy to fake, safe to fake and most audience members can't tell a real one from a false and painless one. Also apparently many choreographers are not all too familiar with some of the possible escapes. So, hammerlock is applied, and things get quiet, static, and boooooooorrrring. I want to know why no one's thrown an elbow or dropped the shoulder and made a a grab for the leg, etc.

Armed forces, law enforcement (and other professionals) have been using a much wider variety of practical joint locks, armbars, leg locks and pain compliance holds that are just peachy. And wouldn't you know it, they are as easy to fake, as easy to keep safe and allow for a much wider variety of combat action to take place. Because most audiences haven't been beaten over the head with these other holds, they will be fresh, frightening, and keep the actor combatant looking cutting edge. Granted these kinds of holds and locks are generally employed at the very beginning or more often the end of a fight. As a director, you want good sightlines and fluid storytelling sure, but allow your choreographer to do his or her job and be creative within the bounds of the characters and you'll get some really amazing results.

If your actors are in command of their bodies, and can at least do some basic falls, you're in for a real treat.