I've done movies with a sword before. But I haven't really been given the full responsibility of something like a Ridley Scott film.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Making a film is very hard work, and you live or die by the sword just a little bit every time you do it, but I wouldn't chuck it in.
I don't do a film unless it has a sword in it. And if it doesn't have a sword in it, I insist that they have one in the same room to keep me comfortable.
I couldn't pick up a sword and go fight anyone, let me put it that way. It's choreography and it's acting. The best sword fights you see look amazing, but it's the acting that sells it more than anything.
I did a production of Macbeth in the 1960s in which I had a swordfight in the final scene. But the blade fell off my sword just as I was stabbing the guy. I ended up having to hammer him to death.
I wonder if people who see 'Blade' will have even seen my other movies. But I don't want all my movies to be in a vacuum. I need a balance because one pays, and the other doesn't.
I'm useless with a sword in real life.
A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand.
Sword fighting in film is not about how good the fighter is, but how good the actor receiving the blows is.
Sword fighting is just as fun as it looks on the screen.
The sword was a very elegant weapon in the days of the samurai. You had honor and chivalry much like the knights, and yet it was a gruesome and horrific weapon.