MovieChat Forums > Redbelt (2008) Discussion > 'Competition weakens the fighter'

'Competition weakens the fighter'

posted 17 years ago by without_eyelids
33 replies | jump to latest

Redbelt is a very mediocre movie.

A couple of points: I can't get past the idea of a rigged MMA competition. A handicapping contest would never be sanctioned by the state. To pre-empt all the bombardments of apologist remarks ("it's a movie", "you don't understand the metaphor", etc), I will say this: If David Mamet (+whoever else wrote this script) is an educated and knowledgeable story-teller and capable of making a well-researched MMA movie, then the viewer deserves at least SOME plausibility. The situations in the movie are stretched to accomodate martial arts mythology, an impotent 'warrior's code', and a warped sense of what makes a fighter a fighter in today's world.

You can't tie a fighter's appendages , it's insanity. No one can win like that... and moreover, no one would fight like that. States wouldn't sanction it, fighters wouldn't fight in it, and I wouldn't watch it. It's garbage, plain and simple, and if Mamet and supporters can excuse this inexcusably lazy backdrop meant to illuminate the warrior ethos amidst corruption, then Redbelt 2 might as well be MMA deathmatches on top of planks with fighters balancing precariously over a tank of piranhas. There's better ways to show the main character as an honest warrior.

"Competition weakens the fighter" is a ridiculous platitude. The only time I ever hear it is when self-proclaimed martial arts masters hailing from some alphabetized and oscure form of donkey karate kung fu need a soundbyte with which to sell their bogus and outmoded martial arts to skeptical people who ask "Well, what about the UFC?" Competition is the only way to make a name for you in the world of mixed martial arts in Brazilian jujitsu. In my school, it is the only way to get promoted. If you can't compete in either of those two activities (with rules), expect to have serious deficiencies as a fighter, whether or not you think those activities accurately simulate fights. They don't, but BJJ does work against a resisting opponent, and MMA is the closest simulation of a steet fight we have without re-introducing death matches. Consider this parting shot: Without competition, MMA would not exist and Brazilian Jujitsu would never have evolved. The fighter who disdains competition is unproven, and the writer who glamourizes him is clueless.

Which is why I think this is just a lazy, Hollywood-ized script. To me, Redbelt capitalizes and glamourizes the MMA fad just as relentlessly as Never Back Down, it just tries to be more dignified. It's disappointing to me because I looked forward to Redbelt and what I got was cineplex fodder. It was either made by a writing staff that knows nothing about MMA or BJJ, or it was not meant for MMA or BJJ fans. Sadly, if you consider the casting of Randy Couture, Machado, Enson Inoue (Sorry if I mentioned the wrong Inoue), and the half-assed techniques attempted in this film... the latter seems implausible.

And by the way: the fight scenes were kind of stupid. BJJ has no strikes. The armbar escapes were pretty unconvincing. All the chokes were loose as *beep* The arm triangle can be escaped while you're standing but if you're on the ground getting choked, you're screwed. But then again, isn't the point of BJJ to take your opponent to the ground? The only cool technique I saw was the flying armbar in the beginning.

[–] cultoflunadoom 17 years ago

sounds like a typical post mma fighter, all about fights and that's it. it isn't about fighting, it's just the backdrop, raging bull isn't a boxing movie. the movie makes fun of you in a way by showing a noble person like mike within something seemingly un-noble like mma, you just prove mamet right.

The Church of Samuel L. Jackson and Latter day Snakes

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] tava0009 16 years ago

Dear OP,

Please get over yourself. You're not the only one in the world who does Jiu Jitsu or MMA. The fact that you are crying out for recognition of real-life MMA seems to show some insecurity on your part.

"The chokes were loose/weak?" Are you FREAKING KIDDING ME? I don't even know how to respond to this. It's not a UFC pay-per-view event, and the fact that many people who watch this movie won't catch the "mistakes" shouldn't piss you off so bad.

"States wouldn't sanction this kind of event." Well, in the movie, they did. Deal. Or go tell Tobey Maguire that he's not really Spiderman...

[–] without_eyelids 16 years ago

Dear responder,

I do not proclaim to be the only one in the world who does BJJ or MMA. My desire for MMA to have recognition doesn't demonstrate insecurity, (perhaps your choice of the word "insecurity" after hasty pawing for appropriate words demonstrates your inadequate education moreso than my "insecurity"). I merely think that MMA deserves recognition and not Hollywood treatment, because it is fascinating without the fracas that producers try to tie it up with... some BS about ancient samurais and rigged competitions, who knows.

The chokes were loose and weak. Laziness on the choregrapher's behalf, plain and simple.

And I only assume as much realism as it is presented to me. Or do you really think Spiderman is an appropriate comparison to this case?

[–] UNTRugby 16 years ago

"No one cares about what you think. When I did Jiu-Jitsu we did strikes. Duh, obviously, you have to be able to hit your opponent somehow and end the fight. What do you think those guys are doing in competition?"

the OP was talking about Brazilian jujitsu which doesnt teach strikes although it assumes them

[–] dio52 16 years ago

"Competition weakens a fighter" is not a ridiculous platitude, just a poorly worded one. The intent was clearly meant to express a difference between prize fighters and those who study martial arts for more than just physical technique as a tool for making money. It's fundamentally the same concept that differentiates a patriotic soldier and a mercenary. I'm not against prize fighting at all, I'm a big boxing, kickboxing, and MMA fan, but from the point of view of someone who fully embraces the entire purpose of martial arts, there is a real difference.

"The great act of faith is when a man decides he is not God."
-Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

[–] Ezekiel_Stone 16 years ago

I think you missed the point of the movie, yes it sounds absurd that the state would allow a match where the fighter has his arms tied but this is not a movie about real life. The sooner you quit comparing it to it the more you'll enjoy the movie. Basically Mike's ideas have been stolen and twisted to form some absurd competition where people are handicapped to fight for money. His ideas were for the training room only where a master could step in and stop the fight if it got out of hand. It was to teach people to train for a real life fight to prevail where the stakes are for your life and not for some money or fame in a cheap grudge match on television.

Competition weakens the fighter, sure fighting can improve your physical prowess and you can be the champ but for how long and at what cost? When you earn so much money and you can't see the trees from the forest. Where money, fame, women, booze can cloud your mind, it is undoing everything the spirit of Martial arts is supposed to do which is to balance the martial artist's mind to live in harmony with the environment.

Martial arts has a meditative aspect to it as well as a physical side, the purists believe that Martial arts should be an activity that leads to introspective examination to settle the mind and balance all. That it is less about showing off what you can do in the ring and the rewards it brings.

I'm not knocking MMA but if it's as pure as you think then why are it's own fighters like Randy Couture and Tito Ortiz complaining that fighters aren't getting enough money. The MMA bosses are the only winners here just like Don King in boxing, promotions is big money, maybe they give a *beep* about the fighter and his art or maybe they don't and see it as a way to earn big money. Theres different thoughts on it and the fighter is the only one sticking their neck on the line. Sure it's good to watch but physical fighting isn't the be all and end all of everything.

[–] without_eyelids 16 years ago

I've had some time to think about Redbelt and not only do I stand by my opinion, I'm vindicated by a very pathetic box office draw. While one can argue against the profit/loss being a reliable standard of measurement for quality, I choose to view it as punishment for a pompous, confusing, and contrived movie.

I've read the explanations and tried to keep an open mind. While I haven't the appreciation for depth as most syndicated columnists might have for film, I do understand what is going on in the movie. It's just that I don't like it. I don't care to indulge far-fetched theories of Mike being tested through some elaborate ruse produced by his grandmaster. Mike's story of purity against all odds is not very compelling to me.

I'll try to respond to your ideas as succinctly as I can, but as I'm writing this I already know that they will be anything besides.

I don't believe martial arts is about harmony with the environment. I believe it's about surviving, fighting, and competing. Metaphysical nonsense is what started the decline of Tae Kwon Do, Karate, and its horrifyingly inbred tree of ineffective striking arts. I think Tai Chi is dance. Teaching stuff that doesn't work in combat but marketing it as such and promoting "harmony with the environment" is akin to selling guns that don't shoot. To take it even farther, anyone who says that their techniques are too deadly for the ring but were born in the street are most likely kooks. Any "meditative aspect" sold to you through a martial arts school shouldn't be anything more than a conveniently placed break where you can catch your breath betwixt sessions of strenuous physical activity. And if it is more than that, then it's a crock. This is how we, as a people, have emasculated martial arts, by declaring that martial arts was some kind of soul-searching exercise, not a method whereby you can beat your opponent in physical combat.

I've drank the kool-aid for many years in regards to that crap, and I'll admit I'm a little harsh when I call it out. I admit that.

No one says MMA is pure. But the real struggles of MMA include so much more than promoters. David Mamet chooses to have his movie's reality completely divorced from our own. It's a bad movie, through and through, and I really do believe that the 72% rating on Rotten Tomatoes shows us how many movie critics are also drinking the kool aid. A 2.4 million take.

Yep, that was long. And I didn't even get into how dumb the movie is. Then again, I feel it would be a fruitless exercise. The same way you charge me with ignoring its beautiful story, character arcs, "hearkens back to Kurosawa" nostalgic feeling and demanding lofty, uncompromising realism, I charge you with ignoring how unfathomably ridiculous the movie's situations are, how it becomes a train of contrivances hellbent on plowing through the roadblocks of logic to hammer down the pure principles of its main character. The only thing it really serves to do is hammer the nails into David Mamet's coffin.

Watching this film has seriously shaken my faith so much that I have to look back on Mamet's movies that I enjoyed (or at least forgave them their stiff, cyclic dialogue) and wonder if I'm drinking the kool-aid too by watching any of his garbage.

[–] budorob 16 years ago

How can money be a determining factor when the filmmakers were making a low-budget movie to begin with? Tim Allen wanted to be part of the film, and was told there's no money in it.

Mike's story of purity against all odds is not very compelling to me.

You could have just ended it right there.

You say Mike's story is not compelling to you...then go on a rant discounting the philosophy behind martial arts. They are one in the same. The fact that you discount it is, in itself, indicative of the philosophy. You train with an empty, focused mind. Are you sure you're not ranting about the New Age movement?

You honestly sound like myself over 10 years ago, before I found my niche and settled in. I used to discount the philosophy and put down other forms of martial arts...until I learned the most valuable lesson a fighter can learn in their whole life: LEARN IT ALL!! If you are serious about fighting, why discount techniques that you could fit easily in your tool box?

I've changed arts before, but changing styles was challenging. However, when I did it, my teacher told me not to forget it...instead, add to it. I've recently started with a second teacher, and he says the same thing. He doesn't want to change me, just add another facet.

"A lie goes halfway 'round the world before the truth has a chance to tie up its boots."

[–] without_eyelids 16 years ago

The money is a standard of measurement that sustains careers. A commercially viable movie (One that ppl want to watch) will vindicate the filmmaker's vision. A commercially unviable movie shows how many people did not want to watch it.

Are you sure you're not ranting about the New Age movement?

No, I'm pretty sure I'm not, bro...

I still disagree. It's okay to acknowledge the age gap and perceptive gap that obviously stands between us. I think not all martial arts are good, and that in fact some are complete wastes of time. Furthermore I find it dangerous that anyone would teach such trash and pretend it is useful in combat. I will continue to put down those arts and their instructors if they claim their art is effective and do not prove it in combat.

Which is not to say I do not believe honor and discipline have no place in martial arts. Hardly. But the way it is presented in Redbelt makes me weary with disappointment. Competition doesn't breed corruption... as a matter of fact, true, pure competition is the ultimate counter to corruption, the equilibrium in which our understanding of combat is purified and advanced. Competition, if anything, is the true test of a fighter - David Mamet could have ended it right there.

[–] budorob 16 years ago

Furthermore I find it dangerous that anyone would teach such trash and pretend it is useful in combat. I will continue to put down those arts and their instructors if they claim their art is effective and do not prove it in combat.

Well said. I totally agree with you on that one. A friend of mine has been ronin for many years now, and he told me about the time he met a 7th degree "grandmaster" of kenpo. The instructor tried to demonstrate a variation on a kenpo form of nikajo, but he couldn't get it on my friend. And to save himself from embarassment, the guy actually tried to kick my friend in the nards. He quickly blocked the kick and yelled at the guy, "what the hell are you doing?" Turns out, the guy had showered attention and money on a real grandmaster, who in turn gave him rank. Unfortunately, a lot of martial arts nowadays is so commercialized, and all about the money. Even in Japan. You can certainly find what you're looking for in the U.S., but I have to say how impressed I am with the instructors and peers I've met in Poland and Bulgaria. I got a little exposure to Sambo while I was over there.

In my experience, I've run into a lot of guys who are into the martial arts to satisfy their egos and basically learn how to hurt people. And I've outlasted each and every one of them. I don't take pleasure in discussing the possible injuries caused by a certain lock, pin or throw. Just its effectiveness.

"A lie goes halfway 'round the world before the truth has a chance to tie up its boots."

[–] UberNoodle 16 years ago

I have also been studying for a very long time and I also know the whole "my style is the best and your style is weak" rubbish, and it is a very juvenile way to be. A true mature martial artist thinks at a level beyond such things, and that level can only be reached through self examination and experience. It isn't about knowledge; it is wisdom.

The OP doesn't have wisdom. He rants about martial arts as if it is ONLY a sport or a means to fight. He doesn't aknowledge the simple fact that a fighter is nothing without a strong mind and soul. A weak mind is a weak fighter, and the greatest fighters don't need to fight. The OP might say that that is hokey *beep* but it isn't it. It IS the fundamental root of mastery - master yourself and don't abuse your skills and knowledge. Use your abilities to create rather than destroy.

I am dissapointed to see how many poeple here think that martial arts is about fighting. If you want to fight, just go out and start one.

[–] quetzalcoatl2012 16 years ago

What you call kool aid is actually the wine. You're the one drinking the watered down kid's drink. Martial arts, kung fu, was developed for defense, but it came out of harmony and spirituality. You say it's worthless if it is taught as anything other than a breather between fights. Does that sound like a good life to you? Your life is probably mostly a breather with very few if any fights in between. If you train your entire life for what should be maybe 5 seconds, then you've lost most of what you have, haven't you?

I'm not insulting you, but it is true. The physical fighting part is the peripheral part. If you learn control and focus, you can apply it to any part of your life, not just those 5 seconds.

Just because you choose not to go deeper than punch, choke, survive, does not mean others that do are lesser fighters.

A second note on your idea that "it's about surviving, fighting, and competing. Metaphysical nonsense is what started the decline of Tae Kwon Do, Karate, and its horrifyingly inbred tree of ineffective striking arts."

I don't know what tae kwon do or karate schools I've seen, but it's always the opposite wherever I see it. Pointless, limited competition and meaningless trophies started and continue the decline karate and tae kwon do. Loosing the metaphysical part, or twisting it into some quasi religion, is what caused the decline of the fighters. If you are calling what those mcdojo's tout as religion and chi nonsense, maybe you are right in some cases. But remember just because the fundamentalist bible thumper sounds like a jackass, it is based on something deeper.

[–] actionmanrandell 14 years ago

fist off all tsun tsu himself who was a general a military master and a master in martial arts said the true purpose of martial arts is not to harm but create harmony.

that is where you lost all credibility being that the greatest military mind in history even stated that fact. and as for tai chi you are a moron tai chi is every bit as deadly as it is claimed to be it did not come about as a dance that is just what you see on tv and in public eye in actual tai chi classes you train in full contact setting you dont do rediculous movements in actual combat aswell as you can generate lots of force i have seen tai chi masters break through dozens of bricks
with a simple palm strike
by the way a dozen or so bricks requires roughly around 1000lbs of force to break through being that 80 year old tai chi masters can break through so many bricks with eas just sulitifies the power you can generate through tai chi

another thing is scientists have studies the internal aspects of martial arts and have found chi to be a very viable energy by hooking machines up to chi gong experts and having cameras in infrared light and viewing the body they had shown that durring meditation and chi gong exersize the body heats up where ever the individual chi gong practitioner says they are directing there chi

[–] budorob 16 years ago

What did you think of the bar fight scene and Mike vs. Security scene before the final duel?

These two scenes I mentioned above are some of the best I've seen in years!! Hollywood is lazy about fight scenes in general, but not in this film. Mamet is known for his hatred of Hollywood...he wrote a book about it!

I think you totally undervalue the ethical and philosophical tenets of the martial arts. You're all about the fights and competition, so it's natural that you favor competition. As a fellow martial artist, I saw more then just a cool flying arm-bar. Did you not notice Mike disarm a few guys at the bar? I saw a tremendous amount of good basics, and especially good ukemi!

The only think that wasn't practical about the film was the final duel. Still, it's a movie. If you're expectations are too high, you'll always be disappointed.

"A lie goes halfway 'round the world before the truth has a chance to tie up its boots."

[–] Mad_Farter 16 years ago

I have to agree with you wholeheartedly on all your points. I like to expound on "Competition weakens the fighter" said by Mike Terry. Fact is, competition does just the opposite! Mike Terry says a competition is not a fight. I say sure, it isn't a no holds barred, no referee, real life, self defense situation. It doesn't have knives, guns, bats, outside reinforcements, dust, chairs... etc. But what is the alternative to a mixed martial arts competition that simulates that? Traditional martial arts training isn't a "fight" either, far from it as a matter of fact. Pre arrange movement isn't a fight. In real life, the partner isn't gonna do what's rehearsed. He's gonna go at you, as hard as he can, without predictability. And you only get that in a competition! Come on Mamet!

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] without_eyelids 16 years ago

I agree with your first paragraph. And I'd have to see more documentation before I believe the second. I'm willing to bet groundfighting was not so developed 500 years ago as it was now, but I could be wrong.

[–] DJ-Ren 16 years ago

without eyelids:

First off, let me explain that I am not a fighter in any "school", "art", or mixture therof. You say you are so, for the most part, I'll buy what you say about fighting. All I know is "survival" fighting - techniques that would end a fight (preferably) before it begins, or within a few seconds. Naturally, these are only good techniques to know in group homes (aka "gladiator acadamies"), youth or adult prisons, street fights, working as an unarmed security guard, and so forth. Naturally, knowing that somebody is about to attack you in a bar, so you glass them; or knowing a few "judo" techniques (so you can, say, get unruly people to "move along") that could easily be countered by anybody who has a yellow belt in "real" judo would have no place in any sort of sanctioned "combat sport" or "training dojo/gym".

Anyway.

I just wanted to ask you some questions. First, if you watched the extras on the Redbelt DVD (which you probably didn't, as you didn't like the film), one of the current owners of the UFC says the UFC can be broken up into 3 "time periods" - the first was essentially unsanctioned, unprotected...pretty much "street fighting". He says the idea of this was to throw in fighters of different disciplines (wrestling, boxing, kickboxing, muay thai, all the various martial arts, etc) 2 at a time into a cage and see which "style" would come out on top.

Now, you say that the only way to test & make better fighters/martial arts practioners/etc. is to have them fight. Was this "one discipline against another, almost street fighting" what you meant, or did you mean "fighting" as in "with a trainer or referee to stop the fights if they got 'out of hand'"?

Secondly, even if you throw away the philisophical meaning behind Mike Terry saying, "Competition weakens the fighter.", couldn't it just be a physical fact? I mean, anybody who fights on purpose - from back alley "prize fighting" to fully padded, refereed, and closely watched boxers - is going to be "weakened", no? The more you "fight", the more you're going to get punched/kicked/choked/whatever, which is going to have a negative effect on your health, no?

Finally, you said, "[t]he arm triangle can be escaped while you're standing but if you're on the ground getting choked, you're screwed. But then again, isn't the point of BJJ to take your opponent to the ground?". That's what I always thought. So explain to me why that's wrong, from a pro's POV. Because every UFC/MMA match I've ever seen, from the old "anything except eye-gouging goes" days, up to the current UFC matches, ALWAYS have at least one person trying to get the other on the ground. And, if it's only Fighter A trying to get Fighter B on the ground (and Fighter B is trying to stay on his feet and use his kickboxing skills), Fighter A ALWAYS wins. And if they're BOTH into BJJ, and are grappling on the ground, the better BJJ fighter wins.

So I guess what I'm asking you is, "WHY are you 'screwed' if you're on the ground getting choked?". Because, as stated above, EVERY MMA fight I've seen has ended up on the ground, usually with one guy getting choked, but the guy getting choked on the ground quite often got out of it. So yeah, please explain.

And just to reiterate, I'm not putting anything you say down. I don't know any recognized form of martial arts, you sound like you do, so I'm trying to clarify some things. There's no point arguing about the movie - it would be like if I watched a movie about something I knew about immensely, and they kept getting the details wrong. Who cares if David Lynch or Uwe Boll made it - I would hate it either way!

"OK! Let's go make some LSD!" - Fringe

-ak

[–] without_eyelids 16 years ago

Now, you say that the only way to test & make better fighters/martial arts practioners/etc. is to have them fight. Was this "one discipline against another, almost street fighting" what you meant, or did you mean "fighting" as in "with a trainer or referee to stop the fights if they got 'out of hand'"?

In a civilized, rule bound society, death matches are looked at as somewhat taboo and rightly so. Every single UFC has had a "trainer or referee to stop the fights if they got out of hand", even the first one. Nowadays, people that train in martial arts simulate defeat with a tap or with referee stoppage, and also do not permit certain techniques to be used. Has the cutting out of certain techniques weakened their development as legitimate tools in a fighter's arsenal? I believe it has. But training for martial arts requires we simulate as realistically as possible without maiming our participants, and the appropriate balance, with realistic knowledge of limitations, is within reasonable parameters and continues to be honed.

My theory is that if you can't beat a man without hitting his balls or gouging his eyes or biting him, it's not likely that you can when you are doing such things.

Secondly, even if you throw away the philisophical meaning behind Mike Terry saying, "Competition weakens the fighter.", couldn't it just be a physical fact? I mean, anybody who fights on purpose - from back alley "prize fighting" to fully padded, refereed, and closely watched boxers - is going to be "weakened", no? The more you "fight", the more you're going to get punched/kicked/choked/whatever, which is going to have a negative effect on your health, no?

It's an interesting interpretation, but I do fully believe that what Mike Terry meant is that competition with rules weakens the fighter because it doesn't prepare him for a street/anything-goes environment... which was stated to that effect in the film, I think.

So I guess what I'm asking you is, "WHY are you 'screwed' if you're on the ground getting choked?". Because, as stated above, EVERY MMA fight I've seen has ended up on the ground, usually with one guy getting choked, but the guy getting choked on the ground quite often got out of it. So yeah, please explain.

This was in response to my arm-triangle comment. That you're "screwed if you're on the ground getting choked" doesn't apply outside of the arm-triangle... there's plenty of chokes you can escape on the ground. In fact, Mike Terry puts it a very good way: "There's always an escape." However, that is incomplete. What he should have said, in my opinion, is that "At some point in time, there is always an escape." Meaning that you may have missed your opportunity, just like in the golden hour of treating a patient, and your chances of completing your goal are drastically reduced.

In regards to the arm triangle... when the technique progresses to where the victim is on his back and the aggressor is off to the side with the choke sunk in deeply, it is very, very unlikely the victim will escape. It is always productive, maybe for spirit and not result, to fight to your last breath (literally), but if you missed your opportunity to escape, then fighting at the last minute won't do you any good. A recent UFC: (Fight for the Troops), Razak Al-Hassan demonstrated this principle when he refused to tap from an armbar that had his limb fully extended. The arm broke. Had he blocked the steps to the armbar beforehand, he might have escaped, but in that situation his only option was to tap, and he decided to stick it out, with disastrous consequences.

[–] UberNoodle 16 years ago

Kata and fixed movements are designed to focus a student. Martial artists don't really use those fixed movements in a real fight. It is PRACTICE. Of course it is fixed. Martial arts is training your self and who you are as a person. It is THAT aspect of that training that is the deciding factor in a real life confrontation. It doesn't matter what techniques you know if your mind and person is weak or incomplete.

That is why having forms and patterns to focus on is important. Students have something to learn and master, and through mastering them they learn wisdom. That wisdom is fluid and applicable in any situation. I have trained for most of my life in Karate. I started with Matsumoto in Australia when I was in grade 4. It was a great introduction. I moved on through several other styles, and both Gojuryu and Gojukai, before settling with Gojuryu. I have had only needed to fight two or three times, and those fights didn't get further than a strike from myself. Many other confrontations never got past my own ability to turn the agressors away; no strikes thrown. I never used a form found in training or kata because I know that they are just teaching tools and not the end. But I have used karate every day of my life, just living.

[–] Drilla 16 years ago

I can see that you are angry at the treatment of the sport, but I think you're far too invested in it for the director's intentions. If we look at the film as a person; the sport and the match, everything martial arts in the film is basically his clothes, what they are aren't absolutely vital to the truth behind the story, they're a way for it (the film) to get to store (the point) without being naked. Yes, you can judge someone by the clothes they wear, but that won't get you to the absolute heart of the person. The story is about doing the right thing, whether you want to call Mike Terry, a samurai or jesus, it's about doing the truly right thing and the trials he encounters to get to the absolute right conclusion, which isn't defending his honor, it's ending the sport, which in this case happened to be a defective garment(sorry to drag out the metaphor). Mamet isn't trying to degrade the sport, he actually had interest in it, if you watch the extras on the dvd, he gives Dana White a wide open forum to speak about the UFC as he pleased and expound the greatness of his Company. Mamet also said he wasn't trying to defame MMA by portraying the corruption, it just happened to be what worked for the film, his MacGuffin. Terry, the character, is trying to be the perfect man, as we all want to be, and his code was to do the right thing and that ended up being him needing to tell the world that this particular sport was corrupt rather than just bowing out, that was his view of the pure path. I believe the reason they didn't use the actual UFC, was to avoid defaming it. So love or hate the film as you like, but MMA was just the pair of jeans this movie happened to be wearing, the actual character of the film is the person underneath.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] joker81784 16 years ago

First off most of this movie has a lot of facts in it. Hollywood in general is a dog eat dog world. And you find people that would have done exactly what was done in this movie. Second of all, the duel at the end is completely believeable in the fact that at least 10 people tried to stop him. After that failed I'm sure most people would say "don't *beep* with that guy". I used to be a bouncer and if there's a person that needs to be kicked out of the club but you know there's no way to do it by force, you try to ask him then you call the police. As far as the whole tying the arm up in a competition. Who knows, I'm not an official for the M.M.A. or the U.F.C. but it is a movie. So it's a mute point. Competition weakens the fighter, that is true. Someone else has already discussed this anyways so I'll let it stand. One other point, BJJ has only been around for 50 yrs maybe. Japanese JJ has been around a lot longer but does not explore ground fighting techniques like BJJ. So whoever said something about the it being around for 400 yrs is wrong. Ground fighting is the difference between BJJ and JJJ. The only completely unbelievable thing is the Japanese fighter and the Grandmaster giving him the belts at the end. I doubt that would happen in real life even if he won the fight. And if anyone doubts me on any of this, except the last part about the belts, go do some research and shut up. Cause I know most of you are ignorant and have nothing better to do than to discredit other peoples work. And as far as it's poor box office returns. It had limited release you dumbass! It wasn't supposed to make any money. But I'm sure it made a buttload on dvd release.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] without_eyelids 16 years ago

Cause I know most of you are ignorant and have nothing better to do than to discredit other peoples work.

The dismissive rallying cry of fragile egos. Some of you take criticism worse than totalitarian governments, and you didn't even make the film!

And as far as it's poor box office returns. It had limited release you dumbass! It wasn't supposed to make any money.

It was probably on limited release for good reason. But if "it wasn't supposed to make any money", then it has certainly succeeded beyond all our greatest expectations.

[–] say_whut 16 years ago

op still doesn't get the point of the film. ejiofor's character show's emily mortimer's character how to defend against a knife attack. the very nature of mma, of prize fighting, is an artificial environment of combat. like you said, the tai chi crap's just what fighters do when they get old and can't fight anymore. and competition is what keeps martial arts alive. however making up artificial fights with all these rules is nothing like true battle, which is what martial arts are designed for. even in the age of miyamoto musashi at least duels were treated as kill-or-be-killed, and most certainly there were no promoters around expecting to get large wads of cash from the outcome.
and as someone else compared a martial arts to an mma prize fighter as a soldier to a mercenary, at least mercenaries are still fighting real battles, even if it's only for the money.
redbelt presents a very exaggerated view of the world of mixed martial arts, and it's cool if ejiofor's doesn't consider it his scene. and yeah the choreography is about as realistic as christian bale's fighting in batman begins but considering mike terry never once fights a person in a ring yet uses his expertise in real-world applications, from the movie set to the bar fight, i think he makes a solid point. bjj, muay thai etc teach moves that can be used for self-defense, a full-scale street fight and so on, but when fighters study in studios mainly to do bouts/tournaments, one could argue that it belittles the purpose of knowing techniques that could kill or keep the practitioner and those the practitioner is defending from being killed. david mamet argues that, and you can't really say he's wrong.

[–] without_eyelids 16 years ago

I'm not saying this to be contentious, but whatever points you have/had are being lost in very poor grammar and improper word usage.