Grégoire Canlorbe

The Light of God in a New Light — Reflections on the Divinity of Jesus, Formless Matter, and Conceptualization in the Human

by Grégoire Canlorbe · Mai 20, 2024

By Grégoire Canlorbe

Here, I will endeavor to try to grasp the way in which the symbol of light is deployed on several levels of meaning, which are themselves linked to correspondent levels in the architecture of reality. Namely: those levels of meaning that are God considered in His ideality, God considered in His relationship to contra-material nothingness, God considered in His incarnation into the universe, and the consciousness of God considered in its incarnation into the consciousness of Jesus. On that basis, I will endeavor to overcome those three philosophical cleavages that are the opposition between radical Arians and the Trinitarians on the issue of whether Jesus is divine; the opposition between Gersonides and saint Thomas Aquinas on the issue of whether there was formless matter instead of a temporal beginning of matter; and the opposition between Averroes and saint Thomas Aquinas on the issue of whether the mind of God (rather than the human mind) is what conceptualizes in the human mind.

I understand God, let us recall, as follows: an infinite, eternal, substantial, volitional, and conscious field of singular ideational models which is completely incarnated into the universe while remaining completely external to the universe, completely ideational, and completely subject to a vertical (rather than horizontal) time; and which is not only completely sheltered from any forced effect (whether ideational or material) with one or more efficient causes in its willingness, but which, besides, is traversed, animated, efficiently-caused, and unified by a sorting, actualizing pulse which stands both as the active part of God’s will and as the apparatus, the Logos, through which God incarnates Himself while remaining distinct from His incarnation.

Considering some entity from the angle of one of its (present at some point) properties consists of considering how the property in question is inscribed within the whole of the entity’s (present at that point) properties. Considering some entity independently of one of its (present at some point) properties consists of considering what are the other (present at that point) properties in the entity when the property in question is ignored. In the majority of ideational entities and of material ones, the fact of ignoring some property lets all the other properties apply. In the case of that material entity that is the universe, some of its properties present at some point apply depending on whether the universe is considered from the angle (or instead independently) of that substantial relational property that is the incarnation relationship of the universe with respect to God.

Neantial, ideational, and material conceptual objects

A concept is a unit of meaning: it signifies a certain object taken from the angle of its constitutive properties (rather than from the angle of all of its properties). The properties (including constitutive) of a conceptual object coincide with the properties (including constitutive) that are imputed to the concerned conceptual object depending on whether material or ideational reality validates the imputation of the imputed properties. In a material or ideational conceptual object, its existential properties of (i.e., those of its properties that are relating to whether the object exists, and to how it exists or inexists) rank among the constitutive properties of the conceptual object in question. A neantial conceptual object is a conceptual object that contains no existential properties; just as every neantial conceptual object is contra-material or contra-ideational, no neantial conceptual object is material nor is it ideational.

Just as every conceptual object is material or ideational or neantial, every conceptual object is fictitious (in a weak or strong mode) or matching (in a weak or strong mode). Just as a fictitious material conceptual object and a matching material conceptual object are respectively a material conceptual object which happens to not exist (in the material field) and a material conceptual object which happens to exist (in the material field), a fictitious ideational conceptual object and a matching ideational conceptual object are respectively an ideational conceptual object which happens to not exist (in the ideational field) and an ideational conceptual object which happens to exist (in the ideational field). Just as a fictitious neantial conceptual object and a matching neantial conceptual object are respectively a neantial conceptual object which is a type of nothingness having not actually preceded the universe and a neantial conceptual object which is a type of nothingness having actually preceded the universe, a contra-ideational neantial conceptual object and a neantial contra-material conceptual object are respectively a type of nothingness substituted for the field of the Idea and a type of nothingness substituted for the field of matter.

A concept and its linguistically accepted definition (i.e., its definition accepted in a certain language) are considered synonymous in the considered language; that synonymy, instead of being true or false independently of reality (whether ideational or material), is nevertheless true or false according to ideational reality (in the case of the ideational objects and of the contra-ideational neantial object), or according to material reality (in the case of the material objects and of the contra-material neantial object). Just as the ideational reality validates or invalidates the synonymy between an ideational object (for example, God) and its accepted definition depending on whether the ideational reality validates whether the constitutive properties (including existential) of the concerned ideational object are those alleged by the accepted definition, material reality validates or invalidates the synonymy between a material object (for example, Chi) and its accepted definition depending on whether material reality validates whether the constitutive properties (including existential) of the concerned material object are those alleged by the accepted definition. As for the neantial objects, material reality validates or invalidates the synonymy between a contra-material neantial object and its accepted definition depending on whether material reality validates whether the constitutive properties of the concerned conceptual object are those contained in the accepted definition; just as the ideational reality validates or invalidates the synonymy between a contra-ideational neantial object and its accepted definition depending on whether the ideational reality validates whether the constitutive properties of the concerned conceptual object are those contained in the accepted definition.

The object of the concept of light is a matching material conceptual object, i.e., a material conceptual object that happens to exist in the material field. The concept of light means light taken from the angle of its constitutive properties; the linguistically accepted definition of light, which evolves as language evolves, must be judged true or false in the light of material reality. The currently accepted definition of light is as follows: “electromagnetic radiation whose wavelength, between 400 and 780 nm, corresponds to the sensitivity zone of the human eye, between ultraviolet and infrared.” Our knowledge of reality remaining irremediably perfectible, that definition is subject to a hypothetical revision one day or another (under the hypothetical progress of physics on that level); we will start from that definition, which we know is “true” until further notice.

Light, symbol of the ideality of God

Every light has: its source (i.e., what it emanates from), and its object (i.e., what it illuminates). We cannot correctly grasp what the symbol of light refers to without focusing on that conceptual trio—luminaire (i.e., source of light), illuminated object, and light. The light of a candle manifests itself via the flame which envelops the wick, and via the wax which the light of the candle illuminates; however the light of the candle is not visible itself. More generally, light manifests itself without making itself visible: in other words, it manifests itself in a mode other than that which would consist for it of making itself visible. In order for light to manifest itself via its source, a necessary, sufficient condition is that light manifests itself via the illuminated object; it is by illuminating its object that light manifests itself via what it illuminates, but it is, besides, by manifesting itself via the illuminated object that light manifests that it emanates from a certain luminary (and manifests which is its luminary). In other words, just as it is by illuminating that object it illuminates that light manifests itself through the illuminated object, it is by illuminating that object that light manifests itself through the luminaire.

A symbol is a concept that allows one or more other concepts to be glimpsed while leaving them in obscurity; it is both an incomplete path towards those other concepts, and a completely hermetic enigma about them. Let us endeavor to see what the concept of light opens up to: to begin with, the ideality of God. Just as matter is that which exists in a consistent, firm mode, the Idea is that which exists in a mode devoid of the slightest consistency and firmness. Just as materiality is what a material entity is composed of, ideality is what an ideational entity is composed of. Reality is subdivided into a material field and an ideational field; the universe occupies (and summarizes) the material field, but God occupies (without summarizing) the ideational field. The supramundane field is to be not confused with the ideational field: the supramundane field, in that it encompasses everything that is beyond the world, encompasses the ideational field as well as the neantial field (i.e., the field of the nothingness prior to the temporal beginning of the material field).

Interstellar vacuum, energy, or thought are modes of matter: they are as consistent as is wood or fire, but consistent in a different way. Light is a certain mode of matter; but it is a mode of matter which is so “fine” in its consistency that it evokes the ideality of which God is made. Let us specify that the Idea (which Plato and Pythagoras deal with) must be distinguished from the idea: the Idea is that which exists in a mode devoid of the slightest consistency and firmness, but the idea is a material entity (in the case of an idea lodged in the mind of a material entity) or an ideational entity (in the case of an idea lodged in the mind of an ideational entity). God is an Idea; but the concept of God in the mind of a certain human is an idea lodged in the mind of said human. Let us also clarify that physics only deals with a certain mode of matter: namely that mode of matter which has mass and extent. Thought (which has neither mass nor extension), as well as the void (which has extension but is devoid of mass), are both excluded from the field of physics; they nonetheless remain modes of matter. Light, although it falls within that mode of matter which occupies physics, evokes a mode of being which is beyond physics; although light is material, it evokes a mode of being that is truly immaterial.

Light, symbol of God considered in His relationship to contra-material nothingness

The light which crosses the void where the celestial bodies “float” barely manifests itself because it barely illuminates the celestial bodies; in other words, the void is black because the light emanating from the stars barely illuminates the celestial bodies. In that regard, light is a symbol of God considered in His relationship to contra-material nothingness. Namely that God—just as starlight barely illuminates the black of the interstellar void that it travels through—does not dissipate at all the contra-material nothingness that it overhangs.

Every conceptual object is either supramundane or intramundane. Just as every supramundane object is ideational or neantial, every intramundane object is material. Just as every conceptual object is intra-mundane or supramundane, every intra-mundane conceptual object is: either fictitious in a weak mode, or fictitious in a strong mode, or matching in a weak mode, or matching in a strong mode; the same is true of every supramundane conceptual object. A fictitious object in a weak mode is a fictitious object which could have been a matching object had this world been different or had another world existed; a fictitious object in a strong mode is a fictitious object which would have been fictitious even if this world had been different or if another world had existed. A matching object in a weak mode is a matching object which could have been a fictitious object had this world been different or had another world existed; a matching object in a strong mode is a matching object which would have been matching even if this world had been different or if another world had existed.

Every intra-mundane object matching in a strong mode is a material object; but a supramundane object matching in a strong mode is either ideational or neantial. Every matching intra-mundane object is a material object matching in a weak or strong mode; but a matching supramundane object is either an ideational object matching in a strong mode, or a neantial object matching in a strong mode. Every fictitious intramundane object is a fictitious material object in a weak or strong mode; but a fictitious supramundane object is either an ideational object fictitious in a strong mode, or a neantial object fictitious in a strong mode. A supramundane object of an ideational type is either matching in a strong mode, or fictitious in a strong mode; the same applies to every supramundane object of the neantial type. Every intramundane object (and, thus, every material object) is either matching in a strong mode, or matching in a weak mode, or fictitious in a strong mode, or fictitious in a weak mode.

Two modalities of the concept of nothingness are valid: a matching modality (in a strong mode) that is contra-material nothingness, i.e., that sort of nothingness that is substituted for the existence of matter; a fictitious modality (in a strong mode) that is contra-ideational nothingness, i.e., that sort of nothingness that is substituted for the existence of the Idea. Of those two modalities of the concept of nothingness, the former has as its object the contra-material nothingness (i.e., the absence of matter) which effectively preceded (chronologically) matter: at least, matter considered independently of the incarnation relationship of matter with regard to God. The latter modality has as its object contra-ideational nothingness (i.e., the absence of any ideational entity), which is fictitious. That the absence of matter was chronologically prior to matter (at least, matter considered independently of its relationship of incarnation with regard to God) is a fact which would have occurred even if our world had been different or if another world had existed; thus, contra-material nothingness is a modality of the concept of nothingness whose object is matching in a strong mode. God exists from all eternity (whether matter is considered from the angle of its incarnation relationship with regard to God), and His existence would be eternal even if our world were different or if another world had existed; contra-ideational nothingness is thus a modality of the concept of nothingness whose object is fictitious in a strong mode.

Matter, in that it had a temporal beginning (if we consider it independently of its relationship of incarnation with regard to God), was preceded by contra-material nothingness. By Himself, however, God cannot dissipate contra-material nothingness; no more than starlight can dissipate the black of the interstellar void. Precisely, the black of the interstellar void symbolizes contra-material nothingness. By itself, the ideality of which God is made cannot dispel that darkness; what is ideational cannot get substituted for the absence of what is material, no more than it can generate ideational effects substituted for the absence of what is material. The only way God can dispel that darkness, and introduce matter in place of darkness, is for Him to change Himself into what He is not: matter.

Light, symbol of the incarnation of God into the universe

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,” the Gospel of John tells us. The sorting, actualizing pulse which unifies, animates, and traverses the field of ideational essences present within God, and which operates the incarnation of God into the world (while allowing Him to remain external to the world which is His incarnation), is that “Word” whose mystery occupied the apostle John (or the Johannine community). It is inaccurate to say of God that He is His Word; the Word of God is nevertheless the active part of His will, as well as the apparatus of His incarnation. The Word, although it unfolds in a time that is eternal (i.e., which has neither beginning nor end) and vertical (i.e., where past, present, and future are simultaneous rather than successive), does unfold; in other words, the Word operating in the ideational field is gradual as is every speech formulated in the material field. Just as God creates (by incarnating Himself) in a gradual mode, the universe exists in a gradual mode; like a discourse that is being held, the universe is unfolding. That joint gradualness in the creation on the part of God, and in the existence of the universe, lets itself be glimpsed in these terms in the Koran: “And, with Our powers, We have built the sky, and assuredly, We continue to extend it.” For its part, the fact that God creates through His Word lets itself be glimpsed here as follows: “When He decides a thing, He simply says: “Be”, and it is immediately!”

What light is a symbol of is not only God considered from the angle of His ideality or of His relationship to contra-material nothingness; it is also God considered from the angle of His incarnation into the universe. Light, let us recall, does not manifest itself in the way that would consist for it of making itself visible. Instead of making itself visible, it manifests itself through its source (what illuminates), and its object (what is illuminated); and it is by illuminating its object that it manifests itself both through its object and its source. Let us see how the symbol of light illuminates the creation by God through incarnation. God is (symbolically) a light that stands out in three ways from the light of this world. In the first place, that light is its own source; it is both the lighting and the light that illuminates, the luminaire and what emanates from it. In the second place, that light that is God does not manifest itself by what it illuminates; God certainly enlightens the universe, but the universe does not manifest the presence of God who enlightens it. In the third place, the light that is God engenders what it illuminates; the light of God brings the world into being by illuminating it. To those three properties of light taken as a symbol of God incarnated into the universe correspond three properties of the incarnation of God into the universe. In the first place, God is substance, i.e., exists from all eternity and without having any efficient cause. In the second place, God remains external to the universe; that exteriority of God with respect to His own incarnation, that independence of God with respect to His own creation by incarnation, it follows from it that the universe does not manifest the presence of God. In the third place, God remains that which created (and is incarnated into) the universe; God is certainly external to His creation, the universe nonetheless remains what God created by means of His incarnation.

Light, symbol of the incarnation of the consciousness of God into the consciousness of the Son of God

It is useful to remember that the light of God is ideational, whereas the light of our world is a modality of matter. God, who hardly manifests Himself through His creation by incarnation that is the universe, nevertheless inspired the words of the prophets; that inspiration, although it did not manifest God through the speech of the prophets, allowed the prophets to express themselves about God. God inspired what was said about Him; His inspiration, however, was not His manifestation. The Gospel according to John, however, says of God that while “no one has ever seen God [until then],” “the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, is the one who has made him known.” That inspired symbolic language can be deciphered in these terms: God, who until then had no more manifested Himself (were it partly) in His creation than His consciousness had been incarnated within the world, saw His consciousness become a human consciousness (i.e., the consciousness of the earthly soul of a certain human), but neither His consciousness nor anything of God manifested itself on that occasion.

Just as, in any novel, the plot can be considered from the angle of the creation relationship of the novel with regard to the novel’s author, or considered independently of said relationship of creation, a same statement with respect to a novel’s plot can be true or false depending on whether the novel is considered from the angle of the creation relationship of the novel with regard to the novel’s author, or considered independently of said relationship of creation. Let’s take a novel whose plot ends on a cliffhanger: in the novel considered from the angle of its relationship of creation with regard to its author, the plot ends on the cliffhanger in question; but, in the novel considered independently of its relationship of creation with regard to its author, the plot continues after the cliffhanger (instead of stopping at the end of the novel). The universe is a novel whose author is God, which He writes by means of his Word; but it is a novel whose words are incarnated into what they say (while remaining external to that material incarnation). Just as God’s words are those ideational essences that He selects and actualizes, the respective incarnation of God’s words is the respective incarnation of those ideational essences that He selects and actualizes. Jesus, in that he is the incarnation of the ideational essence of Jesus, is the incarnation of a certain part of God; but, in his consciousness, Jesus is also the incarnation of a certain (other) part of God in that the consciousness of God is incarnated into the consciousness of Jesus.

The consciousness of Jesus is symbolically a light, but it is a light that stands out in three ways from the non-symbolic light. In the first place, that light is its own object; it is both what illuminates and what is illuminated, the light and what the light illuminates. In the second place, the light that is the consciousness of Jesus illuminates its object while nevertheless leaving it in the shadows; that light illuminates itself without making itself visible. In the third place, the light that is the consciousness of Jesus does not manifest the source from which it emanates, no more than it manifests that it is an emanation. To those three properties of light taken as a symbol of the consciousness of Jesus correspond three properties of the consciousness of Jesus. In the first place, the consciousness of Jesus is at the same time the incarnated consciousness of God (regarding his consciousness in the universe considered from the angle of the relationship of incarnation of the universe with regard to God) and the consciousness of the soul nestled in the human Jesus; thus the consciousness of Jesus is both a property present in God (regarding the consciousness of Jesus in the universe considered from the angle of its relationship of incarnation with regard to God) and a property present in that non-divine entity that is the soul of the human Jesus. In the second place, the consciousness of Jesus, although it existed in the world, was no more manifested in the world than the consciousness present in some conscious material entity is in a position to manifest itself in the world; what is ideational and nevertheless in the world cannot manifest itself alongside any material entity. In the third place, the consciousness of God taken in its exteriority with regard to its own incarnation into the consciousness of the earthly soul of the human Jesus was not manifested in its incarnation; it was incarnated without that incarnation being manifestation.

Grasping what, of Jesus, is of God requires that we go beyond what John (or the Johannine community) seemed to understand from his own symbolic language when he expressed himself in these terms in his Gospel: “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father.” What, of God, became flesh is not His word, but it is the respective ideational essence of those entities endowed with flesh (including the entity Jesus); what makes Jesus a Son of God is that are respectively incarnated a certain ideational essence into Jesus, and the consciousness of God into the consciousness of Jesus. The word of God is what operates the selection and actualization of some ideational essences; the ideational essence of Jesus, in witnessing its selection and actualization get carried out, witnesses Jesus come into the world with a substantial essence that includes the property (that is itself inscribed in the ideational essence of Jesus) of the incarnated consciousness of God. The universe is indistinct from God (although distinct from God who remains external to His own incarnation that the universe is); for his part, Jesus is indistinct from the ideational essence of Jesus and, thus, from a part of God (although distinct from his ideational essence which, while incarnated into Jesus, remains external to Jesus), but the consciousness of Jesus is indistinct from the (totality of the) consciousness of God (although distinct from the consciousness of God which, while incarnated into the consciousness of Jesus, remains external to the consciousness of Jesus).

Overcoming the cleavage between radical Arianism and the Trinitarian doctrine

The entire universe, not just Jesus, is the incarnation of God; but, although God is entirely incarnated into the entire universe, the consciousness of God is only incarnated into the consciousness of one or more human individuals precisely elected so that their respective consciousnesses be the incarnated consciousness of God. The consciousness of God, while incarnating itself into one or more human consciousnesses, does not see the object of the consciousness of God incarnate itself into the object of those human consciousnesses in which the consciousness of God gets incarnated. The object of God’s consciousness is (at every point) one’s existence and the entire field of the ideational essences and the (simultaneous) past, present, and future of the operation of the sorting, actualizing pulse, as well as the entirety of the (successive) past, present, and future of the universe; but the object of the consciousness of the one or those in whom the consciousness of God is incarnated is (at every point) one’s existence and a certain part of the universe, and hypothetically (and in a mode which is, at best, approximative) a certain part of the field of the ideational essences. Only a handful of humans (rather than all or the majority of humans) or a single human (rather than several humans) sees the consciousness of God incarnate itself into theirs; Jesus was either the only human whose consciousness was the incarnated consciousness of God, or one of those few humans (through the ages) whose respective consciousness is the incarnated consciousness of God.

In the universe considered from the angle of its incarnation relationship with regard to God, the consciousness of Jesus is both the incarnated consciousness of God and the consciousness of the soul of Jesus; but, in the universe considered independently of its incarnation relationship with regard to God, the consciousness of Jesus is only the consciousness of the soul of Jesus. Likewise, in the universe considered from the angle of its incarnation relationship with regard to God, Jesus is at the same time a human endowed with a consciousness indistinct from the consciousness of God (in that his consciousness is the incarnated consciousness of God) and a human who in his consciousness has nothing divine nor anything of God; but, in the universe considered independently of its incarnation relationship with regard to God, Jesus is in his consciousness only human (instead of being endowed with a consciousness indistinct from the consciousness of God). In that the consciousness of God is co-eternal with God, the consciousness of Jesus is co-eternal with God in the universe taken from the angle of its relationship of incarnation with regard to God; but, just as much in the universe taken from the angle of its relationship of incarnation with regard to God as in the universe taken independently of said relationship of incarnation, Jesus (instead of being co-eternal with God) has a temporal beginning and end.

The soul, as I expressed myself on that subject in a previous writing, is an Idea which, like the ideational essence, is eternal although endowed with an efficient cause (through God); but which, unlike the ideational essence (which remains within God, and which sees God communicate to it His consciousness and will), is endowed with a consciousness distinct from the consciousness of God, and with an existence external to God. The soul retains its consciousness both when the soul is supramundane (i.e., located in the ideational field) and when it is earthly (i.e., located in a living entity within the material field); but, whereas the earthly soul is without any willingness and without any mind (although every terrestrial soul is nested in an entity that is, if not endowed with a mind, at least endowed with a willingness), the supramundane soul has a willingness and a mind respectively distinct from the willingness of God and from the mind of God. The (supramundane) soul rises to the rank of a god in the ideational field by having experienced, during its stay or stays (as an earthly soul) in the material field, a heroism that is sufficient in order for God to grant it a divine rank. Every divine soul is supramundane; but no earthly soul is divine, just as not every supramundane soul is divine. Although the soul of Jesus became divine at the end of the earthly stay it effectuated in the biological entity that Jesus is, the soul of Jesus had nothing divine during the stay in question.

Heroism and exploit, as I expressed myself on that subject in the same previous writing, must be taken respectively in the sense of the accomplishment (as a conscious material entity) of one or more exploits; and in the sense of an act that is jointly exceptionally creative (i.e., characterized by the mental creation of one or more exceptionally creative ideas), exceptionally successful (i.e., characterized by the complete achievement of an exceptionally difficult goal), and exceptionally endangering for one’s material subsistence. The (earthly) soul of Jesus rendered itself divine (on its return to the ideational field) by experiencing an earthly stay (as Jesus) which saw Jesus accomplish an exploit great enough for that stay to be sufficient to render divine the (supramundane) soul of Jesus. That exploit is that of having created a new, semi-worldly, and multi-millennial religion by dying on the cross. Each supramundane soul knows perfectly the content of each ideational essence; thus each supramundane soul pre-knows perfectly what its earthly stay will be when it opts for a certain earthly stay. God, although each supramundane soul makes use of a self-determined willingness in its decision to opt for some particular earthly stay rather than for another one, perfectly pre-knows the decision of each supramundane soul on that level. God, although He elected the (supramundane) soul of Jesus so that his (earthly) soul be the earthly soul (or one of the earthly souls) whose consciousness is the incarnated consciousness of God, saw the (supramundane) soul of Jesus make use of a self-determined willingness in its choice of an earthly stay characterized by the incarnation of the consciousness of God into the consciousness of the (earthly) soul.

God, while incarnating Himself in the world, remains external to the world which is His incarnation; but the world, for its part, remains indistinct (rather than distinct) from God whose incarnation it is. A same statement can nevertheless be true or false depending on whether we consider it in the world taken from the angle of its incarnation relationship with regard to God, or in the world considered independently of its incarnation relationship with regard to God. In the world taken from the angle of the incarnation relationship of the world with regard to God, Jesus is endowed with a consciousness that is both indistinct from the consciousness of God and distinct from the consciousness of God; but, in the world taken independently of the incarnation relationship of the world with regard to God, Jesus is endowed with a consciousness distinct from the consciousness of God (rather than indistinct from all or part of the consciousness of God). Accordingly, the overcoming of the cleavage between radical Arianism and the Trinitarian doctrine is constitutive of a correct answer to the question of the divinity of Jesus (i.e., the question of knowing whether Jesus is divine). Moderate Arianism considers Jesus as a human who, in that he is the incarnated Father, was both created by the Father and created as indistinct (though distinct) from the Father; and who, in that he has a temporal beginning and end, is not co-eternal with the Father whose incarnation he is. For its part, radical Arianism envisages Jesus as a human who has nothing divine and who, in that he was created by the Father in a mode other than a creation by incarnation, is human (rather than God) and distinct from the Father (rather than indistinct from the latter); and as a human who, in that he has a temporal beginning and end, is not co-eternal with the Father. Whereas, according to moderate Arianism, Jesus is (incarnated) God without being co-eternal with the Father, Jesus, according to radical Arianism, is neither God nor endowed with anything divine nor is he co-eternal with the Father (although he is created by the Father).

Intermediate positions are found between radical and moderate Arianisms; but all modalities of Arianism have in common that they are opposed to the Trinitarian doctrine, for which Jesus is both the incarnation of God (instead of being a creature without anything divine nor anything of God) and an entity co-eternal with God. Knowing which modality of Arianism was the one that Arius actually defended is a problem on which I will not take position here. The cleavage between radical Arianism and the Trinitarian doctrine sees my position on the question of the divinity of Jesus operate an overcoming in these terms. The entire universe (and not only Jesus within the universe) sees God incarnate Himself into it, what is beyond the understanding of the Trinitarian doctrine and of radical Arianism (as well as of all modalities of Arianism). The assertion (in the Trinitarian doctrine) that Jesus is both human and indistinct from God (rather than a part of God) is partially true in that, in the case of the world taken from the angle of its incarnation of God (rather than in the case of the world taken independently of its incarnation relationship with regard to God), Jesus is his incarnated ideational essence (and thus an incarnated part of God), and a human endowed, besides, with a consciousness which is both the consciousness of the (earthly) soul of Jesus and the incarnated consciousness of God. For its part, the assertion (in radical Arianism) that Jesus has nothing divine is partially true in that, in the case of the world taken independently of its incarnation relationship with regard to God, Jesus is a human who is no more an incarnated ideational essence than he is a human endowed with a consciousness indistinct from the consciousness of God.

In the case of the world taken from the angle of its incarnation relationship with regard to God, the consciousness of Jesus is co-eternal with the consciousness of God; but (whether the world is taken independently of its incarnation relationship with regard to God) Jesus himself does have a beginning and an end in (horizontal) time. As such, the assertion (in radical Arianism) that Jesus is not co-eternal with God is true; but the affirmation (in the Trinitarian doctrine) that Jesus is co-eternal with God retains a part of truth in that the consciousness of Jesus in the world taken from the angle of the incarnation relationship of the world with regard to God is indeed co-eternal with the consciousness of God.

Overcoming the cleavage between Gersonides and saint Thomas Aquinas

The question of formless matter (i.e., the question of whether the universe, instead of having known a temporal beginning from contra-material nothingness, experienced a formless matter that was without any temporal beginning) is another question which demands the overcoming of a certain philosophical cleavage: here, the cleavage between Gersonides and saint Thomas Aquinas. Whereas formless matter is matter that exists without entering into the composition of any material entity, arranged matter is matter that enters into the composition of a certain material entity (within which it coexists with formal properties). The Gersonidean position on the question of formless matter is that the universe, instead of having experienced a temporal beginning (from contra-material nothingness), experienced a formless matter (which had always been) from which God operated to create a universe which be endowed with form and not only matter; for its part, the Thomist position on the question of formless matter is that the universe, instead of having experienced a formless matter (without any temporal beginning), had a temporal beginning which saw the universe begin with an already arranged matter.

Each of those two positions has a part of truth (depending on whether the universe is considered independently of its relationship of incarnation with regard to God, or from the angle of said relationship), and a part of falsehood (depending on whether the universe is considered independently of its relationship of incarnation with regard to God, or from the angle of said relationship). The relationship of incarnation of the universe with regard to God is co-eternal with God; but the relation of incarnation of a given entity within the universe with regard to its own ideational essence is no more co-eternal with the ideational essence in question than a given entity within the universe (whether the latter is considered independently of the relationship of incarnation of the universe with regard to God or from the angle of said relationship of incarnation) is co-eternal with its own ideational essence. The universe is nevertheless co-eternal with God when it comes to the universe considered from the angle of its relationship of incarnation with regard to God; regarding the universe considered independently of said relationship of incarnation, the universe, instead of being co-eternal with God, is endowed with a temporal beginning. The universe considered from the angle of its relationship of incarnation with regard to God certainly saw arranged matter begin temporally; but, whereas the universe considered from the angle of its relationship of incarnation with regard to God sees the temporal beginning of arranged matter follow a phase (without any temporal beginning) of the universe that was characterized by formless matter, the universe considered independently of its relationship of incarnation with regard to God saw the universe begin temporally (from contra-material nothingness) and begin with an already arranged matter.

What renders partially true the Thomist affirmation of the temporal beginning of the universe (from contra-material nothingness) is that the universe considered independently of its relationship of incarnation with regard to God is (unlike the universe considered from the angle of said relationship of incarnation) effectively endowed with a temporal beginning. Likewise, what renders partly true the Gersonidean assertion that the universe, instead of having experienced a temporal beginning (from contra-material nothingness), experienced a formless matter is that the universe considered from the angle of its relationship of incarnation with regard to God has (unlike the universe considered independently of said relationship of incarnation) actually passed through the phase (without any temporal beginning) of a formless matter rather than through the phase of an arising from contra-material nothingness. Every entity (whether ideational or material) is a compound of form and composition: the universe considered from the angle of its relationship of incarnation with regard to God was therefore a semi-entity so long as the matter which composed it was a formless matter. For its part, the universe considered independently of its relationship of incarnation with regard to God was an entity as soon as its existence began temporally.

Overcoming the cleavage between Averroes and saint Thomas Aquinas

Conceptualization consists of producing a concept or a definition of said concept or a description of all or part of the object of said concept; conceiving a concept consists of conceptualizing, or judging that a concept or a certain definition of said concept or a certain description of all or part of the object of said concept are valid. The question of conceptualization in the mind of God (i.e., the question of whether it is the mind of God, not the human mind itself, which conceptualizes in the human mind) has been the subject of a cleavage between Averroes and saint Thomas Aquinas. Whereas the former conceives of the human mind as incapable of conceptualizing, and the mind of God as that mind which conceptualizes in the human mind, the latter conceives of the human mind as capable of conceptualizing (just like the mind of God), and the conceptualization in the human mind as the work of the human mind itself.

Every concept (i.e., every unit of meaning) is an idea; but every idea is either a concept or an association of concepts. Every definition is an association of concepts; but not every association of concepts is a definition. The willingness (i.e., the pursuit of one or more ends) is either acting (i.e., employing one or more means for the purpose of an end), or non-acting (i.e., pursuing an end without employing any means for the purpose of that end); in God, the sorting, actualizing pulse, the Word, is the acting willingness. An object of willingness (i.e., an end that a willingness pursues, or the means or the various means that it employs for the purpose of an end) is never an idea; in every conscious volitional entity, willingness (whether it is acting or non-acting) is nevertheless accompanied by the idea of the object of willingness. Just as a volitional idea is an idea that accompanies an object of willingness (without causing the object in question), an actional volitional idea and a non-actional volitional idea are respectively a volitional idea that accompanies an end or means present in an acting willingness; and a volitional idea which accompanies an end in a non-acting willingness. In God, the sorting, actualizing pulse, in that it merges with acting willingness, is distinct from volitional ideas; each operation of said pulse is nevertheless accompanied by a correspondent idea in the mind of God. Just as an actional volitional idea in God is a volitional idea which corresponds to a certain operation of the sorting, actualizing pulse, an actional volitional idea which, in God, corresponds to a means in acting willingness and a non-actional volitional idea which, in God, corresponds to an end in acting willingness are respectively a volitional idea which corresponds to a selection and actualization; and a volitional idea which corresponds to an incarnated ideational essence. From an ideational entity present in the material field, nothing can be the object of an experience by a material entity; but it is possible for a human material entity to have an experience (which nevertheless is, at best, approximative) of all or part of an ideational essence, as well as of the consciousness of God or of a supramundane soul, as well as of all or part of (what are at the moment of that experience) the non-actional volitional ideas in the mind of God, as well as of all or part of (what are at the moment of that experience) the ideas in the mind of a certain supramundane soul.

A non-actional volitional idea in God is an idea corresponding to an end which is certainly in the will of God, but which does not relate to the operations of the sorting, actualizing pulse. Just as an ideational essence present in God must be distinguished from that essence’s concept present in the mind of God, the direct grasping of an ideational essence in God must be distinguished from the direct grasping of an idea in the mind of God. In the mind of God, ideas that are other than non-actional volitional ideas are also those ideas that God does not allow humans to grasp; in the mind of God, non-actional volitional ideas are those ideas that God allows humans to grasp, but a grasp that is, at best, approximative and whose effectiveness varies from one individual to another. The mind of God, although capable of conceptualization, is no more the mind that conceptualizes in the human mind than humans are incapable of conceptualizing; the Thomist position that the human mind, like the mind of God, is itself a conceptualizing mind (instead of the mind of God being that mind which conceptualizes in the human mind) is true. The Averroist position that the human mind, although incapable of conceptualization, sees the mind of God conceptualize in it remains partially true: on the one hand, in that the human mind is capable of conceptualizing from a direct grasping of all or part of the non-actional volitional ideas in the mind of God, a grasp whose effectiveness is, at best, approximative and varies from one individual to another. On the other hand, in that the human mind is capable of conceptualizing from a direct grasp of all or part of the ideational essences contained in God, a grasp whose effectiveness is, at best, approximative and varies from one individual to another.

Conclusion

Genesis distinguishes between primordial light and the light of the sun and the moon; the primordial light was created before the first day, with “the heavens and the earth,” but the sun and the moon were created only on the fourth day. Genesis tells us of God that He creates by “speaking,” and that the primordial light is His creation. As God invites humans to complete His creation that is the universe, the word that He inspires invites humans to deepen the symbolism it contains. The primordial light, we think, is a symbol of God envisaged in that ideality that is evoked by the finesse of the mode of matter that is light; a symbol of God envisaged in His inability to replace contra-material nothingness so long as He is only a light in the darkness; a symbol of God envisaged in the fact that He incarnates Himself into the world as a light which would create, by illuminating it, the illuminated object itself; and a symbol of God envisaged in the fact that His consciousness, while seeing itself incarnated in the consciousness of Jesus, remained hidden in that incarnation like a luminaire that its light would not manifest.

The “beginning” with which Genesis and the Gospel according to saint John open is no chronological beginning, but a pre-chronological one. In other words, the time of origins, instead of being the beginning of the time of this world, is that time without beginning and without succession from which the beginning of the succession of time in this world stems. Saint John, who symbolically identifies “the Word” to “the true light, which, when coming into the world, enlightens every man,” adds that this light “was in the world, and the world was made by it, and the world did not know it.” The deciphering of those inspired symbolic words involves the overcoming of these three ancient philosophical cleavages: the cleavage between radical Arians (for whom Jesus is a creature with a temporal beginning and end, and a creature who is God-created without being incarnated God) and Trinitarians (for whom Jesus is a creature co-eternal with God, and a creature who is incarnated God) on the question of the divinity of Jesus; the cleavage between Gersonides (for whom a formless matter without temporal beginning, not contra-material nothingness, was prior to the compound of form and matter in the universe) and saint Thomas Aquinas (for whom the universe had a beginning in time and began as a composite of form and matter) on the question of formless matter; and the cleavage between Averroes (for whom it is the spirit of God which conceptualizes in the human spirit) and saint Thomas Aquinas (for whom it is the human spirit which conceptualizes in the human spirit) on the question of conceptualization in the mind of God.

It is false that God is entirely incarnated into Jesus; it is no less false that there is nothing of God that is incarnated into Jesus. Jesus sees a part of God incarnate itself into Jesus, and an (other) part of God incarnate itself into a part of Jesus. What, of God, is incarnated into Jesus is a certain ideational essence; but what, of God, is incarnated into that part of Jesus that is the consciousness of Jesus is the consciousness of God. Jesus (whether the world is taken from the angle of its incarnation relationship with regard to God, or independently of said incarnation relationship) has a beginning and an end in time; but the consciousness of Jesus in the world considered from the angle of the incarnation relationship of the world with regard to God is indeed co-eternal with the consciousness of God.

The universe considered from the angle of the incarnation relationship of the universe with regard to God has experienced—instead of a temporal beginning which would have seen it begin with an already arranged matter—a formless matter which never began temporally, but from which God operated to create a universe which be veritably a composite of form and matter. Concerning the universe considered independently of the incarnation relationship of the universe with regard to God, the latter—instead of having passed through a formless matter whose phase would never have begun in time, but would have temporally preceded the phase of a universe composed of arranged matter—has effectively begun in time with an already arranged matter which temporally began from contra-material nothingness.

The human mind (rather than the mind of God) is what conceptualizes in the human mind; the human mind, with an efficiency which varies from one individual to another, and which is, at best, approximative, is nevertheless in a position to conceptualize from a direct experience of all or part of the ideational essences contained in God. Besides, the human mind, with an efficiency which varies from one individual to another, and which is, at best, approximative, is in a position to conceptualize from a direct experience of the consciousness of God and of all or part of the non-actional volitional ideas contained in the mind of God. Precisely, the mystical experience is the suprasensible experience a conscious material entity makes of the consciousness of an entity that is ideational (and present in the ideational field), or of one or more ideas contained in the mind of an entity that is ideational (and present in the ideational field). To humans, God allows the grasp (in a mode that is, at best, approximate) of all or part of His non-actional volitional ideas; of His mind, it prevents him from grasping (even in an approximate mode) the slightest idea other than a non-actional volitional idea.

The Word, which incarnated the consciousness of the ideational entity that is God into the consciousness of the soul of the human entity that is Jesus, made himself the object of the symbolic discourse inspired to Jesus; thus it can be said symbolically of the Word that he is “the true light, which, when coming into the world, enlightens every man.” Jesus saw his consciousness incarnate the consciousness of God in the world, and the (global) incarnation of God into the universe, while having formless matter precede the universe considered as incarnation, caused the beginning in horizontal time of the universe considered independently of that incarnation, and the consciousness of God, although it manifests itself in the mystical experience of the consciousness of God, was not manifested in its incarnation; thus it can be said symbolically of God that He is a light which “was in the world, and the world was made by it, and the world did not know it.” God, who no more manifests Himself in His incarnation into the world than He manifests Himself in the incarnation of His consciousness into the consciousness of (the earthly soul of) the human Jesus, manifests in suprasensible experience (which is carried out in a mode which is, at best, approximative) all or part of the ideational essences contained within Him, as well as all or part of the non-actional volitional ideas contained in His mind. Suprasensible experience—when it has as its object all or part of the field of the ideational essences in God, or all or part of the non-actional volitional ideas contained in His mind—is that through which God illuminates us; the grasp of what are (at a given moment) all or part of those non-actional volitional ideas present in the mind of God (at the concerned moment) is that by which God reveals to us the content (at the concerned moment) of that which is sometimes considered His heart.

The fact that a certain human entity, at a given moment, is grasping in an approximative mode all or part of what the non-actional volitional ideas are at the moment in the mind of God is inscribed in the ideational essence of the human entity in question, just as is inscribed in the ideational essence in question what are those non-actional volitional ideas present in the mind of God at the moment of the grasping. The same applies to a grasping whose effectiveness is less than approximative. God is not constrained by any actualized ideational essence to have some non-actional volitional ideas in mind at a given time; He nevertheless ensures in the operation of His Word that, when a certain actualized ideational essence states what all or part of His non-actional volitional ideas are at a given moment, what His non-actional volitional ideas are effectively at the moment in question validates what the ideational essence states about all or part of those ideas. Likewise, no supramundane soul is constrained by any actualized ideational essence to have some ideas in mind at any given moment; but God, in the operation of His Word, ensures that, when a certain actualized ideational essence declares what all or part of the ideas are at a given moment in a given supramundane soul, what the ideas are effectively in the soul in question at the moment in question validates what the ideational essence states about all or part of those ideas. If the parallel between what a certain actualized ideational essence states about a certain idea present in the mind of God at a given moment and the content of the mind of God at the moment in question were to fail, then the universe would not fail to implode and to experience a reset; the same is true of the parallel between what a certain actualized ideational essence states about a certain idea present in the mind of a certain supramundane soul at a given moment and the content of the concerned supramundane soul at the concerned moment. Although God makes Himself capable of errors in His quest to make the universe evolve towards ever-increasing order and complexity, He is (and forever remains) incapable of errors in His approach to ensuring that never any of those parallels fails.

That article was initially published in The Postil Magazine’s March 2024 issue.

A conversation with Loren Avedon, for Bulletproof Action

by Grégoire Canlorbe · Fév 25, 2024

Loren Rains Avedon is an American martial artist, actor, Emmy Award winning stunt man, co-producer, action director, and second unit director. Grand Master Avedon is a 9th Dan black belt in Hapkido certified by the IHF and the WHF. GM Avedon is also a 9th Dan black belt and Grand Master in Taekwondo serving as the Secretary General of the USTF a Federation created by one of the founders of the Kukkiwon. 10th Dan Grand Master In Kon Park (Dan #303), of more than 70,000,000 Kukkiwon black belts. GM Avedon is known for his portrayal of Jake Donahue in “The King of the Kickboxers”, Scott Wylde in “No Retreat, No Surrender 2: Raging Thunder”, and Will Alexander in “No Retreat, No Surrender 3: Blood Brothers”. In Europe (Germany et al.) the movies were also titled “Karate Tiger 2, 3 and Karate Tiger 5”. These epic starring roles fulfilled his contract with Seasonal Films in Hong Kong. According to Black Belt Magazine in 1992 in the United States the movies ranked numbers four, five and six of the top 10 Martial Arts movies ever made, only surpassed by the legendary Bruce Lee.

Grégoire Canlorbe: How do you remember your collaboration with Cynthia Rothrock in No Retreat, No Surrender 2?

Loren Avedon: She was wonderful to work with, very down to earth and very kind. In the 1980s, we were both doing a lot of tournaments, and I met her as a martial artist when she was training with Master Ernie Reyes Sr. the father of Ernie Reyes jr, as part of the famous “West Coast Demo Team” many years before I saw her on the set. Most of my acting was with Max Thayer in that film but all of us collaborated beautifully, really. We still keep in touch, though of course life takes you where it takes you. Max Thayer is still a dear friend and I see him whenever I am in LA.

Grégoire Canlorbe: In terms of martial arts, how did you allow your character in No Retreat, No Surrender 2 to stand out from Kurt McKinney’s character in the first movie?

Loren Avedon: If you notice Kurt’s technique, he’s doing more crescent kicks and techniques like that rather than spinning heel kicks for example. I don’t know what his martial art background is, but they hired me based on my abilities. And honestly, I don’t want to pump myself up too much, but let’s just say they were very happy that I had all of this capability to do reactions, take a lot of punishment and do most of my own stunts. I was a good athlete. Now you have these athletes that are absolutely incredible with all kinds of creative “trickster” kicking, but that was started in the late 90s.

Grégoire Canlorbe: Do you stand ready to co-act one more time with your No Retreat, No Surrender family in some new sequel?

Loren Avedon: Assuredly, and I would be especially thrilled if the Blood Brothers were reunited. For, whenever Keith and I are together, everybody goes kind of crazy. Keith and I are currently putting together a film interviewing screen writers and we might have something together very soon.

Grégoire Canlorbe: The King of the Kickboxers—sometimes known as Karate Tiger 5 in Europe—is thematically similar to Kickboxer but original in its snuff film storyline.

Loren Avedon: We—Billy and I and the whole team were trying to create that experience of revenge as written by Keith Strandberg. We were focused on the “snuff film” plot. In KOTKB my much old brother is killed at the beginning of the film. In Kickboxer, the brothers are closer in age. By the way, Dennis Alexio, the gentleman who played Jean-Claude’s brother, was a good friend of mine.

Grégoire Canlorbe: The final fight is quite phenomenal. Please tell us about how it was choreographed, executed, and shot.

Loren Avedon: Billy was phenomenal to work with, and fight with. Without him, it wouldn’t be such a great picture. He is so humble. He came to me in the beginning of the film and said “Loren, this is your movie and I want to do everything I can to make it great”. The film was shot in 14 weeks and the conditions were very hard. It was hot and humid all the time in Thailand, and I got tremendously ill, several times. Billy came in 35 pounds heavier and left about 30 pounds lighter. It was so much fun though, but a lot of pain as well, all part of making a great action movie.

At the time, there was no pre-visualization, no monitors, no playback, none of that. It made the filming of the final fight more challenging, choreographing everything on the spot, but working with the best in Hong Kong they didn’t need playback, they knew immediately if we needed another take. There was a brilliant choreographer, who also grabbed the camera and shot the fight—Tony Leung Shin-Hong. He is still working in Hong Kong today as a director and action choreographer. He is the Green Dragon Master in the first IP Man.

Grégoire Canlorbe: Please tell us about that movie called Los Angeles: Street Fighter also called Ninja Turf which is quite early in your acting career.

Loren Avedon: It was just kind of fun to be in a film with my Masters. We shot a lot of it sort of on the fly. We didn’t have permits. We would do it on the weekends, as Master Jun Chong and Master Philip Rhee were running the Taekwondo studio during the weak. A great example of how we got away with many shots is when we’re walking up as a gang to the actual “Fairfax” High School campus after school had let out for the day, so that’s the real Fairfax High School, and those are real students there. We just pushed them all out of the way and did the scene. Master Rhee, in the end of the film, hits me a couple times with a real wooden sword, and kicks me in the stomach, I throw my feet in the air and land face down flat a stunt commonly called a “dead man”. All I did was put some cardboard down on the alley street to cover all the disgusting trash and human feces there in that alley near “skid row” in downtown LA, where all of the drunks, drug addicts and homeless people were living on the street were before we came. It was pretty yucky in that alley, but we made a fun low budget movie.

I had been around film cameras all my life because of my mother. She was a TV commercial producer and director, and advertising creative director. She put me in many of her commercials. She knew all the big movie and TV stars, so I grew up around all of these big stars. All of her friends were, you know, my uncles, and aunts really, as my Father and Mother were never married, and my Dad had moved to Italy with his daughters by marriage, to run “Eve of Rome”, where he met his second wife Princess Luciana Pignatelli Avedon. It was martial arts that really changed my life. I needed male role models and I found them in the great Martial Artists at Jun Chong Taekwondo.

Grégoire Canlorbe: How do you think that Los Angeles has evolved since the time of Ninja Turf?

Loren Avedon: That’s a pretty sad question to answer, because Los Angeles has become less relevant in filmmaking. I just visited Los Angeles last May of 2023, and it was nice because there was recently some rain, and everything was green, as there had been such a long drought, the air was a bit fresher. But Los Angeles is, shall we say, not what it used to be. Now it’s easier to shoot in other places and with digital cameras, worldwide locations, it is far easier and cheaper to shoot great movies with the ability to move quickly, and with far less hassle. Los Angeles has become ridiculously expensive and is truthfully “shot out” which means that the locations have been used in so many movies and TV shows. Audiences know its Los Angeles. Unless you are working on a studio production which I did very often as a stunt man, stunt double. I got back into stunting so I could be a good single Father to my daughter Nicole. I was not going to let her grow up without a Father like I did. She has turned into a wonderful young lady. Daughters need their Fathers, and I was determined to be the Father I never had.

Grégoire Canlorbe: Many of those 80ties movies in the martial arts and action genres were produced by that iconic duo that are Menahem Golan and Yoram Globus. How do you assess their legacy?

Loren Avedon: Cannon Films, Golan Globus productions made all of these tremendous Chuck Norris movies. Using Israeli funding and locations in Israel. They were really instrumental in making martial arts movies outside of Hong Kong productions. It’s wonderful—I love watching those old movies. I just saw Richard Norton when flipping through the television channels last night. That was probably one of their productions. I never worked with Cannon, it wasn’t my time.

Grégoire Canlorbe: What is your take on the Ninja saga starring Scott Adkins?

Loren Avedon: I think it’s phenomenal. Scott is an amazing martial artist and a good action actor. But when you’re in the business, you become a bit more critical of things; you see things that others don’t. And the time that he had to shoot these movies is much shorter than that I had, usually about 3 weeks. The movies I am so well known for we had at least 3 1⁄2 months for principal photography.

Grégoire Canlorbe: How do you explain that unique innovativeness witnessed over the course of Asian history when it comes to martial arts?

Loren Avedon: I think it just comes down to necessity. You know, all of these weapons and things that they used were developed using farm tools, because people weren’t allowed to have swords or anything like that because of the laws preventing common people possessing weapons. Only the Emperors armies could have weapons of war. Lords, Kings or only those who could afford the expense of maintaining and army with such weapons helped keep the masses in line. Weapons were allowed only for the elite and the warrior class, devoted to their duty to protect their Kingdoms. I am so grateful most of the Chinese martial arts were preserved to some degree. It was some Army general or someone who whispered in Mao Zedong’s ear that convinced him to renounce his original plan to eliminate all martial arts and execute all Masters. Thank God that Mao eventually allowed it to become a sport instead— wushu.

I was just telling my wife the other day that I would fly to San Francisco to get videotapes of these 1970’s Chinese movies, made in Hong Kong or Taiwan because it was so entertaining to watch the choreography. In those days they would go out, as you probably know, and not have any script, just find an open field, or any place they could shoot, and figure out when they got there how to create a fight scene and to carry on with it until they had a feature length film. They just wanted it to be exciting and entertaining to watch so they could show it in the theaters. They used action to bridge the gaps between any culture because a punch in the face is a universal language. Throughout history, when we come to today, the Chinese and all Asia are still practicing martial arts. If you’ve seen on YouTube the videos of all the children practicing in China, I wish we had that in the West, honestly. We are losing one of the most important things all humans need especially growing up, discipline.

By the way, even in the 20th century, Bruce Lee got in a lot of trouble for practicing Wing Chun in San Francisco and for teaching white people, but that’s the truth. Kung Fu and the Shaolin Temple and all they do to Master an ancient art is absolutely phenomenal. I believe that Mao would not have survived as a dictator if he had destroyed the Shaolin Temple. The Chinese people would never allow that.

Grégoire Canlorbe: What about a new collaboration with the director of the two first No Retreat, No Surrender—Corey Yuen?

Loren Avedon: I believe Corey Yuen is between the U.S. and Hong Kong and working on other things. I don’t know exactly what’s going on with him, but whenever we do the new Blood Brothers, Keith and I want to hire a Chinese director assuredly. We want that ground pounding action.

Grégoire Canlorbe: What martial-arts movie do you believe could be made about the contemporary relationship between America and China? What kind of story could be told?

Loren Avedon: Throughout history, we have come to the aid of the Chinese many times, my Father included. My Father was a fighter pilot in the Navy in WW2 and the Korean war. Inside of one of his leather flight jackets is the Taiwanese flag, which of course is a disputed territory. In Chinese it reads “this is a friend of Taiwan, protect him and help him all you can” China and America are linked far more than people really know or will admit, and clearly that connection and how the Chinese know that the United States and the West have always come to their aid historically to free them from foreign occupation and allow them to be a sovereign nation. Most recently from Japanese occupation for 40+ years in WW2 is something that should be conveyed cinematically. It has been done in “Empire of the Sun”. It would be great to do a series like “The Crown” about China, but there just isn’t enough interest in doing so in the west.

Xi Jinping is a very powerful and smart leader. I hope that all of this, shall we say, South Pacific conflict, the Chinese trying to claim a little bit more of the international waters by creating man made islands, can be resolved peacefully. Because we see that the world is really kind of in turmoil now, all of this war and various things going on all around the world, such as Global Climate Change. In China we don’t really know what’s going on, because we’re given what we’re allowed to see by the media. Militarily the NSA here in the United States knows a lot more.

China has 5,000 years of history, America’s not even 250 years old. We can all learn from each other. People don’t really seem to understand that shamefully. There are almost two billion people in China while we’re only a few hundred million. We should all work together because this earth is all we have. We can destroy it many times over. I pray for the day we all come together to clean up the planet and live sustainably after 150 years of the Industrial revolution. We need to continue that relationship with China and remain allies, in spite of human rights abuses and China’s Communist regime.

The Chinese know from our history with them. The last sort of conflict that really was an issue China got involved with openly was the Korean War, which my father was a part of. He was called back into the service and trained Naval Aviators. His call sign was “Deadeye” because he was a double Ace plus. As a Commander in the Navy and was being groomed to become an Admiral. He was a top gun instructor during the Korean war, flew many missions in the war and also trained the ROK Airforce. He decided not to make the Navy his career, he’d seen so many men die in combat and didn’t want the responsibility of sending men into battle. He’d seen enough death. In WW2 the average fighter pilot was only to survive 5 missions. My Father was an amazing pilot, got his pilots license in 1936 at age 12. He had logged enough hours in flight and was granted that license at such a young age, amazing.

Grégoire Canlorbe: Do you sense the art of fighting when one is working as a producer willing to deliver a qualitative action movie has something to do with the art of fighting as a martial artist?

Loren Avedon: It’s about fighting with enhanced realism for me. You have to Master technique, then heighten creatively but realistically. If you see some Marial Arts movies today, they’re over-choreographed; it lacks the proper rhythm and reactions. There must be a certain time for reaction and also for a little bit of acting within the fighting. People need time to absorb what they’ve seen. I think it’s the video game generation that ruined things. A fight should be creative but more importantly believable. The Chinese were great at that and also allowed me to do as much of the action as possible. Truthfully, they demanded that.

Grégoire Canlorbe: You stood as a second unit director on Tiger Claws III, didn’t you?

Loren Avedon: Let’s just say I had to jump in every once in a while, and help. There was a cameraman and choreographer there. While Jalal was directing other things, I would take a splinter unit camera and direct my fights and some shots that were needed in other parts of that studio. He had converted a movie theater that he owned in Toronto, Canada into a studio. I think of the name of the studio/theater was “The Donlands”. His company is “Film One”.

I love to work in Canada. It’s a bit cold in Canada but people there are so friendly, it was a lot of fun. Jalal and I may be doing some things together in the near future. It’s interesting how the floodgates have opened during the pandemic, when people had to stay home the dusted off their old DVDs or Video cassettes and all of a sudden people were watching old movies. Keith Vitali just did this film with Cynthia and did a screen fight with Benny the Jet Urquides. And that’s full circle from “Wheels on Meals”. There’s a lot going on and a lot of possibilities for the future.

Grégoire Canlorbe: Do you have any project behind the camera?

Loren Avedon: I would like to get behind the camera more when I get back into the entire business. Because it’s a business. You have to pay back your investors and have everything under wraps. Working on a film with the Chinese was great. Having a say in the choreography as they allowed me to do when we were shooting “The King of the Kickboxers” and all my other Hong Kong movies. They would ask; “Loren, what do you think about this? What do you think about that?” That’s great because that’s the part of the process. It takes a team.

So, I would like to go back to Asia and hire a Hong Kong director to shoot, but then be there in the editing room as well. Because I’m sure you realize that the editing of the movies is a very important part of the whole process. You can shoot something phenomenal, but what I learned from them is they had the editor there on the set and he was taking notes on what takes were best etc. The assembly of the product is really important.

They’re shooting movies in twenty-one days now, I had three and a half months. The possibilities are endless when you have time. I already have several writers that are interested in penning the script if we’re to film in Asia. We’ll see. It’s all about writing for budget, and getting it done where it is really believable and exciting. You can see when it looks more like a martial arts demo which is what a lot of these movies made today look like, and when there is real contact and all of the little tricks that I’m not going to share.

Grégoire Canlorbe: To you, spirituality and martial arts have some strong connection, don’t they?

Loren Avedon: To me, martial arts are a very important part of spirituality indeed. The physical world is only what you make of it, what you interpret. So as a martial artist, it’s mind, body, and spirit every time. I always come back to the training and to the discipline of martial arts because that structure allows me to do much more than, let’s say, I would be physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually able to do otherwise. There are times where you have to be fearless. You’re scared to death, but you can’t show that nor can you let fear control you.

I don’t know who I would be or what I would be without the training and the experiences of being a dedicated martial artist learning and practicing with great Masters. Martial Arts training and practice allow you to transcend the physical. You become able to do things that most athletes cannot. The most physically demanding and athletically demanding dangerous stunts and fight choreography take after take, over and over and over again to perfection. If you watch those videos on YouTube, people breaking cinder blocks, capping blocks, bricks, huge blocks of ice, 2 x 4” wood pine against the grain, even young women, how does their petite little hand do that without their mind and their spirit, rigorous physical conditioning, and their control of the moment? Not thinking about the bricks but rather going through them. Mind over matter.

Grégoire Canlorbe: Martial arts are, it seems, is a path to the Ki or Chi and all the supernatural realm that is surrounding us.

Loren Avedon: I have taught so many thousands of martial artists and I always say that, whenever I am fighting or teaching, my Ki or Chi will change. And it will change the energy of a room, or of an entire situation. What does that come from? It’s obvious that there’s more going on than we see and that enables a Martial Artist to transcend the physical with your mind and your spirit using your body.

I did a seminar in Hawaii about Action film making. I was hired by the Big Island Film Office to put together basically a Martial Arts stunt fighting demo and also break down the fights in IP Man to show and explain martial arts in film. We didn’t get into much of the spirituality of that, but let’s just say in Hawaii like in certain other places of the world, you get that feeling that there is so much more going on than what we see. And if you don’t have that sixth sense or that ability to feel like Bruce Lee said, “don’t think, feel,” you wouldn’t be able to feel what’s going on behind the physical realm. What happens through training is you develop that sixth sense.

Grégoire Canlorbe: How do you sum up the specificities of taekwondo with other martial arts?

Loren Avedon: Olympic Taekwondo has evolved. I was very involved in taekwondo and studied many different Kwans or styles. I’ve been to the Kukkiwon many times. My Grandmaster took me all around the world. He was in charge of Taekwondo competitions by the WTF (World Tae Kwon Do Federation) and the Kukkiwon for all sanctioned competitions in Central and South America for about 10 years starting in the year 2000. Today’s Taekwondo only exists because when Korea was occupied by Japan, I think from 1904 to 1945, they had to adapt their martial arts to the Japanese way. It’s an amalgam of many things. From that came Tang Soo Do, and after WW2 when Korea was a sovereign Nation again came the development of Taekwondo, and Hapkido (from small circle) Japanese Jiujitsu.

Taekwondo now as a sport, I don’t enjoy todays Taekwondo as much the Old Olympic style of the eighties and nineties that had a 36’ x 36’ competition ring (square) with a 3’ warning track indicating when a competitor is out of bounds. Points could only be scored by a player (competitor) by hitting the opponent with “trembling shock” to the body or head or KO. These days, I rather would watch the international taekwondo, or open style karate tournaments where they’re punching, kicking, sweeping, stomping the head, doing what is necessary but in a controlled environment. I also enjoy JUDO competitions, it is exciting and is somewhat similar to the close quarters joint locks and throws of Hapkido, but without striking, or the finishing techniques of Combat Hapkido. The beauty of Taekwondo as a sport developed from the simple truth that it is too easy to punch somebody in the face, but if you could kick them in the face, or kick them in the body, or do something very acrobatic and stylish, involving beautiful footwork and dynamic kicking it was much more beautiful, exciting, and effective as a sport and Martial Art. The ancient art of Korean tae kyon developed to be modern Taekwondo. Tae Kwon Do still has the best kicking techniques of any Martial Art.

If you notice, a lot of MMA champions, including Anderson Silva, Anthony Pettis are Taekwondo stylists originally. This is because Taekwondo has great footwork. And the lack of footwork is the problem with a lot of the other martial arts, no disrespect but it’s true. If you can’t move with speed and balance you cannot win in a striking art. All great MMA fighters have mastered a traditional martial art, just think about Bruce Lee. He learned Wing Chun, which is for very close quarter fighting, but does have foot effective foot work, that is very interesting as it involves almost a pigeon toed and bent knee movement which can bridge distance at speed. Bruce Lee realized boxing and other true kicking arts required good foot work. He mimicked Muhammad Ali’s dancing and shuffling to execute his kicking techniques and close distance. Wing Chun was developed 300+ years ago by a 5’ 1” woman to defeat a 6’ tall man in close quarters.

Grégoire Canlorbe: How does the king of the kickboxers (you) assess Kickboxer?

Loren Avedon: Jean-Claude’s style was great, but I think what the movie was focusing on his learning to transcend fear and anger, pain emotional a physical by hard training and conditioning through extreme martial arts training to reach higher degree of Ki/Chi through that training and heighten your degree of consciousness and power to defeat a larger stronger opponent with things like level change, kicking techniques (jumping kicks), and low kicks to the legs and femoral nerve. Your forge steel through fire and hammering that steel to develop a lethal weapon.

Grégoire Canlorbe: Yes, the training in the stone city amidst the ancient warriors. Becoming supernatural through martial arts is a topic you can find in the first No Retreat, No Surrender as well.

Loren Avedon: You must be referring to the training with Bruce Lee’s ghost.

Grégoire Canlorbe: Indeed. Would you be intrigued by a sequel to the very first installment which would be featuring Donnie Yen as Ip Man’s ghost?

Loren Avedon: I heard there was a direct sequel to the first No Retreat, No Surrender in the works, I don’t know whether they plan to have Donnie Yen act as Ip Man’s ghost. If that’s their choice and it’s done well, not in a corny way, it will be interesting.

Honestly, I had not seen the first No Retreat, No Surrender before I went to Thailand to star in No Retreat, No Surrender 2, Raging Thunder. I had just come back with my Father from a Safari in Kenya and Tanzania, I had great experience in Africa discovering a whole new culture, that’s the beauty of travel. Mark Twain has a great quote about how travel breaks down all barriers and prejudices: “Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one’s lifetime.”

But spirituality was the question raised about Kickboxer vs my movies in Hong Kong. There wasn’t so much spirituality in No Retreat, No Surrender 2,Raging Thunder, No Retreat, No Surrender 3, Blood Brothers. But it was introduced by the character Prang in, The King of the Kickboxers.

Grégoire Canlorbe: Thank you for your time Loren is there anything you would like to add?

Loren Avedon: Thank you for the interview. It’s nice to still be relevant and recognized for my work, and to have people that are still interested in those early Hong Kong action movies. When on Facebook there was that picture of Keith Vitali and I implying the possibility of doing another Blood Brothers, it was like an avalanche of messages and comments looking forward to that possibility. I barely got any sleep because of all of the messages, all of the people wanting to get involved. As I mentioned, we are in the process of developing a script at the moment that will star, Keith and I. It would be wonderful for the fans to see us together again, introducing a new Martial Arts star would be great if we can find one that has all the qualities required. We will be working on that aggressively very soon. After all we have 3 generations of fans now. The market for such a film is there and will be very successful.

Have you practiced any Martial Arts?

Grégoire Canlorbe: Not really. I did some Muay Thai some years ago.

Loren Avedon: Muay Thai is a hardcore striking art. I don’t like taking the leg kicks, I learned how to absorb them by training in Muay Thai. I trained in many different martial arts, because if you don’t have the complete understanding of other styles technique, you’re really missing out. And I’m still learning, that’s the beauty of it. You take yourself out of the world and put yourself into an entire other world where there is structure and discipline, and you connect with everyone while respecting their ways and their rules and their beliefs.

Look at South Korea, it’s one of the largest economies in the world though a very small area. I’m just very grateful as a Westerner to be accepted into their world and to be embraced by them and that’s the beautiful thing. You can bridge so many gaps, language barriers, or anything with sport. And martial arts and taekwondo, whether it’s the Olympic style or old- school hardcore knock’em out drag’em out Karate, is where you’re able to learn about yourself and to be able to engage with others without having to ever be violent. Because it’s not about violence, it’s about developing your mind body and spirit and living your life the Martial way, with honor.

That interview was initially published on Bulletproof Action, in February 2024

A conversation with Alan Delabie, for Bulletproof Action

by Grégoire Canlorbe · Oct 3, 2023

Alan Delabie is a French director, screenwriter, actor, producer, and martial artist. A black belt in karate shotokan, he is also trained in full contact and kickboxing and won the Nunchaku European Championship. In the movie field, he is notably known for the Borrowed Time trilogy, the last installment of which he co-directed with the man who mentored him in his cinematic adventure, David Worth.

Delabie has won awards at several film festivals, including the Los Angeles Films Awards, the Los Angeles Actors Awards, as well as festivals in Istanbul, Tokyo and New York. He also received an award at the famous Gala Action Martial Arts Magazine in Atlantic City. In 2023, he played the role of a vampire in The Last Nosferatu, for which he received the award for best actor. Still the same year, he played Alex Lapierre in thriller Shepherd Code.

Grégoire Canlorbe: Please tell us about The Last Nosferatu.

Alan Delabie: I fell in love at a very young age with two movie genres: action, and horror. One of my challenges has been of directing a werewolf movie, so I wrote a werewolf screenplay. I ended up turning to a vampire movie’s project as it was too hard to find the money for a werewolf movie: at least, one that can compare favorably with Stuart Walker’s Werewolf of London and John Landis’s An American Werewolf in London.

The Last Nosferatu tells a story that has nothing to do with that in Murnau’s movie; but the Nosferatu is not some unique character, it is a type of vampire instead. There is no action in The Last Nosferatu, which is all about horror with a special emphasis put on characters development and makeup. I wanted the process of my character’s transitioning from human to vampire to be as convincing as possible, both psychologically and in terms of physical changes.

Grégoire Canlorbe: How do you assess Klaus Kinski’s vampire in Werner Herzog’s Nosferatu?

Alan Delabie: Klaus Kinski, quite a personality—truly a madman, just as much a great actor! I love his work, as well as that of his daughter, Nastassja Kinski, the panther in Paul Schrader’s Cat People. Werner Herzog’s Nosferatu and Klaus Kinski’s vampire portrayal in the latter are certainly great. I nonetheless prefer the original Nosferatu movie, which Friedrich Wilhelm Murnau’s directing—and Max Schreck’s acting and makeup—make an unsurpassable classic. The fact it is silent, and black and white, only increases the mystery and horror…

Grégoire Canlorbe: What is your assessment of contemporary horror movies?

Alan Delabie: Today many of those horror movies with spectacular visuals just forget that they should have a good screenplay. Conversely many independent horror movies have a creativeness and crafty screenplay that are counterbalancing their lack of technical, financial means. That classic that is A Nightmare on Elm Street, which frightened me while I was a child, was already made with a budget only of $1.1 million (what remains relatively low, even in the 1980s). Yet it could rely on Wes Craven’s brilliant writing and directing, not to speak of Robert Englund’s legendary interpretation. A blockbuster remake of Nosferatu, as dazzling as its CGI would be, could barely hold a candle to the 1922 movie, no more than the remake of A Nightmare on Elm Street can compare with the original Freddy movie.

Over the course of one of my stays in Los Angeles, I was surprised to notice how the house that “acted” as that of Heather Langenkamp’s character, Nancy Thompson, and the house that “acted” as that of Johnny Depp’s character, Glen Lantz, are really standing in front of each other.

Grégoire Canlorbe: It seems turning a Hollywood dream into a reality is what the “borrowed time” of your life path is being spent notably.

Alan Delabie: Living the Hollywood dream was a childhood dream, which I would never give up. I had already performed many stage demonstrations on French and Belgian television, and acted in TV movies and series like À tort ou à raison [Rightly or Wrongly], when Jalal Merhi offered me that I be part of his TV program Master of the Arts (aka Road to Hollywood). I would later write and film, and act in, my first feature, Eight Hours, a psychological thriller that would end up being projected in San Diego. Then I would start acting in a number of short movies and web series in America, and have the idea of the Borrowed Time web series. The unexpected fruit of that idea would be a movie trilogy.

You know, it is an illusion to think that you gonna become a Hollywood actor just because you proved your worth as a martial artist. A martial artist who wants to be an actor, but who is no good actor, just a good martial artist, can hardly impress Hollywood and get a role in some major production. By contrast a good, charismatic actor, if he is no martial artist, can still end up in a Marvel production in which he will have doubles carrying out all (or some of) the stunts and fights.

Assuredly a good way of challenging, proving my actor abilities was through venturing into the horror genre as I did with The Last Nosferatu, Meosha Bean’s MVB Films Halloween Horror Stories Vol II, or even with Chris Power’s Bloodslinger, a Canadian feature that is nicely interweaving horror and western.

The Last Nosferatu – makeup, and practical effects

Grégoire Canlorbe: Two cases of a filmic intertwining between horror and action that come to my mind: George Romero’s Land of the Dead, and Lucio Fulci’s Zombi 2 with its iconic shootout in the hospital…

Alan Delabie: I am an admirer of George Romero’s work, which The Walking Dead and its slowly walking zombies, who cannot get killed unless they’re shot in the head, have been massively inspired by. My favorite movies by Romero are Night of the Living Dead, and Dawn of the Dead. Land of the Dead is a good installment in Romero’s Dead series though.

You do well to mention that unofficial sequel to Night of the Living Dead that is Lucio Fulci’s Zombi 2, as Fulci is one of those brazen masters of horror who’ve left their imprint on my filmic sensibility. The scene of the hospital shootout, or that of the eye, or that of the shark, they highlight how Fulci was willing to push the limits of what can be shown onscreen. Joe D’Amato—just think of his Anthropophagus—is another of those cheeky pioneers who were afraid of nothing.

You must know that Catriona MacColl, who extensively collaborated with Lucio Fulci, acts as Franck Denard’s mother in Borrowed Time. She is my spiritual mother in the movie field actually. We did a short movie together, Mourir d’Aimer [Dying of Loving].

Grégoire Canlorbe: Speaking of Franck Denard, how did you have the idea of that character? Is he a projection of you in some other timeline?

Alan Delabie: No, Franck Denard is completely opposite of me. While I was in San Diego on a rainy, gloomy day, I decided to spend time writing and then came up with the idea of a short web series about a man who, while leaving prison and suffering from a brain tumor, establishes himself as a vigilante.

After I made a few capsules, and a friend of mine in Los Angeles, Meosha Bean, discovered those, she suggested to me that the idea should be developed into a feature. Anatomy of an Antihero: Redemption (aka Borrowed Time), with she standing as a director and me as a writer, would be launched shortly after. Although the end of Borrowed Time implied a collapsing Franck Denard, shedding tears of blood and refusing to continue to take his medications, was about to die on the beach, a producer would express interest in launching a sequel. I proposed that we work instead on a prequel dealing with Denard’s stay in prison and what happens between his release and those ulterior events related in Borrowed Time. The producer agreed, and I started writing Denard: Anatomy of an Antihero (aka Borrowed Time 2), which I would direct as well.

It was too hard to get the authorization to film in a jail, so the prequel, which I first planned to contain a large segment—half of the plot—set in a prison environment, would end up with only a few custodial scenes, all in the form of flashbacks. The success the second installment would meet on streaming platforms would arouse the launch of Borrowed Time 3: Falling Apart, which I would co-direct with David Worth. When working on Anatomy of an Antihero: Redemption, I could hardly imagine there would be any additional installment; but I now believe a trilogy is what Borrowed Time had always been destined to be.

Eric Roberts, Alan Delabie, and Merrick McCartha

Grégoire Canlorbe: Two climactic moments in the saga are respectively your fight with Abdelkrim Qissi, and the training montage featuring you alongside Mohammed Qissi.

Alan Delabie: Yes, and you can discern some inspiration from Abdel’s fight at the end of Lionheart. I somewhat regret that Abdel and I didn’t find time to rehearse our choreography as thoroughly as we should have. David, who was kind enough to check the editing of the training montage, gave me some helpful advice.

Besides Abdelkrim and Mohammed, the Borrowed Time have assuredly allowed me to collaborate with a variety of other great actors: to name but a few, Eric Roberts, Costas Mandylor, Louis Mandylor, Patrick Kilpatrick, Matthias Hues, or Bob Wall, legendary opponent of Bruce Lee.

Grégoire Canlorbe: Did those contracts you made with producers ask you to cede the copyright on Borrowed Time?

Alan Delabie: No, I could keep the copyright.

Grégoire Canlorbe: How both of you came to codirect Borrowed Time 3: Falling Apart is a high moment in that adventure that has been your mentorship by David Worth.

Alan Delabie: It’s been more than thirteen years since I’ve been in touch with David. I had the audacity to reach him, and to introduce him to the early tentative steps of my work in the movie field. Since then, indeed, he has been mentoring me, and following and assessing my modest achievements.

The first time I would meet David physically would be in 2013 in Los Angeles. At the time, he was teaching in San Francisco and doing several rounds trips between L.A. and San Francisco. When meeting we felt a time would come when we would do some movies together. A few years later, I would write Borrowed Time 3 and then submit the screenplay to David, who would see some potential in it. That is when I asked him whether he would agree to take charge of the L.A. part, while I would personally take care of the Europe part. David accepted my offer, and we would have much pleasure working together on the movie. After the filming was complete, David let me know that, whenever I would have a new project situated in L.A., he would be there to help me.

David has been checking my work since even before he codirected Borrowed Time 3. You can easily imagine how stressed I am whenever the man who directed Kickboxer and made the photo for two Clint Eastwood classics is judging my way of filming, editing, and acting. His criticism is always constructive though.

Here are two things he taught me, which I would like to convey in turn. Firstly: no matter how you edit it, if that footage you’re working on is bad, you cannot fix it. Secondly: it’s better for that footage you’re working on to have a good sound and average picture quality than have an average sound quality and good picture quality. Sound is really what gonna allow you to stand out.

David Worth (on the right), and Alan Delabie

Grégoire Canlorbe: You used to be compared to Jean-Claude Van Damme.

Alan Delabie: I indeed used to be compared to him, and to personally find inspiration in him. I am just being myself today. Jean-Claude’s charisma is unique, and unsurpassable. He has a warrior face that is cute, angelic at the same time. Whenever he acts as a dark character, he doesn’t shine really. JCVD is clearly at his best when he acts as a light-hearted, combative character, one who may go through sadness and anger, but in all circumstances remains cheerful and gentle and never stops fighting. It is something David Worth could capture beautifully.

Grégoire Canlorbe: A contemporary horror movie that was made from a modest budget is Damien Leone’s Terrifier. The latter and its sequel, Terrifier 2, were respectively made from $35 000 and $250 000. Both movies are great, and have been successful financially and in terms of buzz. Do you believe an independent action movie can be as fortunate nowadays?

Alan Delabie: Two remarkably well chosen examples. Damien Leone has managed to create a clown character who is truly terrifying and catchy, and who rivals with Stephen King’s It. I prefer the first Terrifier installment, which I find to be more effective and original.

Yes, an independent action movie can be just as “fortunate,” both “financially and in terms of buzz,” but it is harder. You must know that, nowadays, an independent action movie with a budget exceeding $300 000 is never gonna be able to recoup its costs most likely. It is something I learnt through Don “The Dragon” Wilson, who is accustomed to acting in action movies with a budget situated between $300 000 and $500 000. The reason is situated at the marketing level. An independent action movie just cannot compete with all those action blockbusters that can put dozens of millions of dollars into their communication and advertising.

True, your movie may still create a buzz with a modest marketing budget (or even no marketing budget at all), but a buzz is something way easier to arouse with a horror independent movie than it is with an action independent movie. Winnie-the-Pooh: Blood and Honey had a fun, original concept that caused a sensation. Anyway all independent movies, when it comes to breaking even, face a same problem at the level of distribution. Given the public at large is increasingly relinquishing both the movie theaters and physical supports, it is increasingly unlikely for an independent movie to be offered a release other than just on a streaming platform. Yet that type of release is less rentable.

Don « The Dragon » Wilson and Alan Delabie

Grégoire Canlorbe: You’re acting as a French professional killer, Alex Lapierre, in Shepherd Code. It seems you’re inscribing yourself in the lineage of Alain Delon in Jean-Pierre Melville’s Le Samouraï…

Alan Delabie: Alain Delon with his stern face and cold, stoic interpretation was perfect as Jeff Costello. I would love to meet him someday. To me, he is a lion, so are Jean-Paul Belmondo, Lino Ventura, Jean Gabin, and Michel Constantin. Alex Lapierre is a role that would fit Van Damme better than Delon though.

Grégoire Canlorbe: How was the Shepherd Code project born? What is its spirit?

Alan Delabie: At first, while there were three of us to be willing to invest into a new movie project, I wanted to direct a sequel to The Last Nosferatu. I planned my character to be chased by an equivalent of Van Helsing, whom I wanted to be played by Silvio Lumac. As my makeup artist wasn’t available at the time, I turned to another synopsis of mine, one about a hired killer who wants to make his last mission before retiring.

I developed a screenplay from that synopsis, and then had the project launched with Don Wilson cast as the backer of my character’s last mission and David Worth attached to the project as an assistant producer. I also cast Silvio Lumac as a rival assassin, whose relationship with Alex Lapierre is similar to that Antonio Banderas’s character is having with Sylvester Stallone’s character in Richard Donner’s Assassins. I codirected Shepherd Code with Lh Chambat, who had edited The Last Nosferatu. We shot in L.A., Bristol, Lisbon, and Paris.

Shepherd Code isn’t only about suspense and action. The introspection Lapierre finds himself proceeding with as he is carrying out what is supposed to be his last mission, the way he becomes aware of the source of his troubles, it is something I also wanted to stand at the core of Shepherd Code.

Grégoire Canlorbe: Are there a few scenes of Shepherd Code you would like to tease?

Alan Delabie: Yes, one in the desert with a white car whose trunk is being opened. Another one I would like to tease features two characters—the one played by Michael Morris and mine—shooting at the same time. Both scenes clearly have a Tarantino vibe. There is still another scene I would like to tease, which features David Worth doing a cool cameo.

Michael Morris, and Alan Delabie – Shepherd Code extract

Grégoire Canlorbe: Both Shepherd Code and Borrowed Time 3 had parts shot in Los Angeles. L.A. is reportedly a good place for filming, with great urban landscape for action.

Alan Delabie: Honestly L.A. is a nightmare for movies. You cannot shoot there without any license. If you start filming in the street without any delivered authorization, you soon end up getting stopped by the police and finding yourself with a fine. We were lucky that we could rent locations for the filming in L.A.; but, frankly, the urban landscape isn’t especially nice there.

Most of those scenes featuring a shootout in the streets of L.A. are actually filmed in a studio nowadays. That is because insecurity and violence are now reigning in L.A., and you can be easily mugged or have your equipment stolen whenever you’re filming there. It happened on Shepherd Code’s set. Our boom operator had his boom mic stolen just in front of us, but we could get it back fortunately. It is no wonder that many companies delocalized their filmings from L.A. to Atlanta. Anyway we could capture some strong visuals in L.A., especially that scene on a building’s roof. What we shot in the desert is just as impressive.

Grégoire Canlorbe: Does the way Paris was shot in John Wick 4 resonate with you?

Alan Delabie: I like the three previous John Wick movies very much, but that fourth installment left me somewhat disappointed. It is as if the magic, including in the Paris segment, had vanished. It was nice to see Scott Adkins being offered an original role (in the Berlin segment) though. To me, his best movies are Undisputed II: Last Man Standing (aka Boyka) and its sequels, as well as Avengement and The Debt Collector and its sequel.

Grégoire Canlorbe: Do you believe the sound, visual quality is something you can achieve even with modest technical means?

Alan Delabie: A few months ago I was with David Worth, who had just bought a new iPhone. We did some videos tests with his iPhone, and we witnessed how it could shoot in 6K not less than in slow mention. With two iPhones (at least, that model or one comparable), two tripods, and a lavalier microphone, you’re perfectly in a position to shoot something that is quite good in terms of sound and visuals. David suggested to me that I watch Tangerine, a feature that was shot entirely with three iPhones. I must say the movie isn’t bad at all.

I positively react to the fact that, in a sense, it is now increasingly easier to get the technical means to make one’s movie, and even to have one’s work released. If you cannot have your film rendered available on a streaming platform, you can still post it on YouTube, which remains a way of getting your work known. But beware: if you want to make a (good) movie, you must be able to proceed with a team job and, accordingly, to delegate some tasks and to respect, listen your colleagues. Also, you must be ready to be held to account whenever you’re getting your funds through a crowdfunding or some directly reached investor or sponsor.

Grégoire Canlorbe: How do you feel about The Last Kumite?

Alan Delabie: Quite a cool project. I am somewhat disappointed that Émilien De Falco wasn’t part of the adventure, as he would have been perfect as a lead character. It obviously remains a great cast with people like Matthias Hues, Billy Blanks, Kurt McKinney, Cynthia Rothrock, and both Qissi brothers. I heard there was a fight between Billy and Matthias, which I obviously look forward to discovering. I collaborated with Animal King, a capoeira master who fights in The Last Kumite. I must say he is very talented.

Grégoire Canlorbe: You’re regularly involved with the score of your movies. Would you be ready to collaborate with Goblin band, who composed the soundtrack of many Dario Argento and other Italian horror classics?

Alan Delabie: I love Goblin’s work. To me, they reached their summit with the soundtrack of Luigi Cozzi’s Contamination. Yes, I would be ready to collaborate with them, as well as with Fabio Frizzi, the composer on Zombi 2 and many other Lucio Fulci classics.

Grégoire Canlorbe: Thank you for your time. Is there something you would like to add?

Alan Delabie: It was quite sympathetic. I may be the conductor whenever I am alone to direct a movie; but I would be nothing without my collaborators. I may do my best to deliver a good movie; but my work could hardly shine if it weren’t for the talent of each of my actors, and that of each of my technicians. That’s why I attach special importance to bringing to light my collaborators and their credits, and to carrying out an authentic team job in a spirit of gratefulness.

That conversation was initially published on Bulletproof Action, on 3 October 2023

A conversation with Michael Bornhütter, for Bulletproof Action

by Grégoire Canlorbe · Sep 20, 2023

Michael Bornhütter is a German sensei, stuntman, fight/stunt coordinator, and actor. He is notably known for The Saint: Wrong Number, The Bourne Ultimatum, V for Vendetta, and The Matrix Resurrections. He won a Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Action Performance by a Stunt Ensemble in a Motion Picture for The Bourne Ultimatum; what’s more, he was nominated for a Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Action Performance by a Stunt Ensemble in a Motion Picture for The Matrix Resurrections.

Bornhütter is involved as a fight/stunt coordinator, fight choreographer, and martial arts/stunt teacher with Movision Movement, a Berlin based “stunt team & community of actors and stunt performers specializing in martial arts, fight design & movement preparation/training of lead actors.”

Grégoire Canlorbe: Please tell us about Movision Movement. How was the company born, and what are its ambitions?

Michael Bornhütter: I think Movision Movement was born through Manu [Manuel Werling] and Anna [Anna-Jorinde Pursche] because they both love movement, and both are excellent artists and martial artists. The deeper meaning in the name is found in the details—Mo-vision, the vision of the movement.

I met Manuel on a no-budget film project (Dark Net: The Beginning) that I supervised as a fight choreographer; Manu also played a scene in the film, and I liked the art and style with which he moved, so we got together and I hired him as a fight choreographer assistant for a big film project (Tribes Of Europa). Manuel was a stunt performer before and from the moment we started working together everything went great. That’s when I joined Movision Movement. I also like the idea of Movie and Vision; that is another way of understanding the name.

Michael Bornhütter (in the foreground), and Manuel Werling (in the background)

Grégoire Canlorbe: To what extent do the task of a sensei, martial-arts mentor—and the task of a fight coordinator—relate to each other?

Michael Bornhütter: I think it’s close. Before I started the fight and stunt choreos, I was a sensei for mixed martial arts, just for martial arts. It helped me later to choreograph the fights; it helped me to deal with people and work with them. This is great for me. It’s a different job as a martial arts sensei, but it’s very similar because you work with people and explain to them how you do things. Teaching and learning is what I love about it.

Grégoire Canlorbe: How do you sum up the tale of your “40 years of experience in various traditional & modern fighting styles”?

Michael Bornhütter: My journey began at the age of 12; that’s when I learned traditional fighting styles. I later started stunt training, in the 80s; times were different in this area. In 2000 I worked with Donnie Yen and learned film martial arts, which is completely different from reality. Because it’s unreal; there’s a short real part in the fight, but you could never use that on the street. I learned a soldier’s way of handling weapons, all weapons and knives; I was taught a soldier’s tactical drills. I learned all of this even before I was a stuntman; for, when I started martial arts, I had a sensei who unusually taught me a lot of weapons. He said all martial arts are good and so I learned how to use Sai and Tonfa [a weapon from Kobudo and Ju-Jitsu], and many other weapons and fighting styles like those I would make use of as a stunt and movie fighter.

Grégoire Canlorbe: So, you’re experienced as much with firearms as with fencing, archery, and knife throwing.

Michael Bornhütter: I remember The Three Musketeers [Paul W.S. Anderson’s version]; that was super crazy. We shot in 3D and everything had to be much more precise because the focus is much closer than in 2D; that means we had to be much more precise with the weapons. It made everything more complicated, but also more interesting. You can fake a lot of things—knife throwing and things like those in your question—under the camera; you can also do a lot of tricks when editing. But faking is a little more difficult in 3D.

Michael Bornhütter, Hamudi Ahmad, and Manuel Werling (from the right to the left)

Grégoire Canlorbe: I believe one of your skills as a stuntman is also driving stunt.

Michael Bornhütter: I’m not a very good precision driver, but I’ve had experience with precision driver things and have driven a lot of vehicles. There are people who drive much better than me, whom I would entrust with tasks such as getting involved with a car race in a parking without anything happening to the vehicle he is driving, or doing a precision drive on an actor and stopping just before hitting him.

I do those things though; I also do things like a U turn. It’s all a matter of practice; you can learn all of that, it has a lot to do with what people want to specialize in. Car stunt has a lot to do with technical standards: if the car is to jump from a ramp, explode, or roll over, it has to be prepared adequately. That means you don’t just need someone who can drive; you also need someone with all the necessary know-how. I know all that, I was there a lot; but I always try to get away from those things, that’s not my stuff really.

Grégoire Canlorbe: How do you assess Nicolas Winding Refn’s Drive featuring Ryan Gosling in the role of a Hollywood stunt driver?

Michael Bornhütter: I think the film is very good. There’s always a little bit of truth in a film, but it’s a romantic idea. There’s another old film that’s pretty cool related to it too, which I think is called Driver [Walter Hill’s Driver featuring Ryan O’Neal]; but of course that has nothing to do with reality either. From a cinematic point of view, Drive is awesome, with very good driving, and very good stunt driving, which, I have to say, are very well shot.

Grégoire Canlorbe: When it comes to the way stuntmen are solicited, used, and treated in the Hong Kong movie industry, do you notice some significant difference with the way they are solicited, used, and treated in Hollywood?

Michael Bornhütter: I got into Hollywood films relatively early: at the end of the 80s, while the wall was still in Berlin, I was a stuntman on a Hollywood film with Gene Hackman [Company Business], part of which was shot in Berlin. It was a film about the Cold War; before it was over and was supposed to hit theaters, the wall fell, that’s why the Americans withheld the film. When the wall fell, things moved on pretty quickly: a Hollywood film with Michael Douglas and Melanie Griffith [Shining Through] was made here in Berlin. In the beginning it was like you only ever worked with the Americans when they came here; that changed quite a bit in the 2010s, with the possibility offered to many German stunt people that they work in America once they’ve entered the SAG-AFTRA.

I worked with the Chinese for the first time in 2000; I was the German stunt coordinator on a series [Der Puma – Kämpfer mit Herz] with which Donnie Yen was involved as an action unit director. I was a part of Donnie’s team, and did the casting of all the German fighters; I also worked on some choreos with Kenji [Kenji Tanigaki]. Initially it wasn’t possible to work in Hong Kong, as the Chinese weren’t really interested in working with Europeans. It is now the case that many German stunt people are brought to Hong Kong or India, and filming there; but I think it is only ten or fifteen years ago that they were offered that possibility. The whole thing has become more global, which was actually kickstarted by Jackie Chan; he worked in America himself, and inspired other Chinese movie fighters (like Jet Li, and Donnie Yen) to do the same. He did a lot to have people from all countries collaborate with each other in Hong Kong, and elsewhere.

Here is a “significant difference” I see between the Americans, the Germans, and the Chinese when it comes to stunt and movie fighting. The Americans do everything with a lot of money, and with a lot of technology and people; the Chinese do everything with a lot of tricks and try to do the job with less equipment, less money, and less people but with effective things and ideas. And we Germans are somewhere in between.

Grégoire Canlorbe: You were involved with Matrix Resurrections as a stunt performer, and nominated by the Screen Actors Guild Awards for outstanding performance by a stunt ensemble in that framework. How do you remember the experience?

Michael Bornhütter: For me it wasn’t as exciting as it might have been for the younger people, as I made a lot of films like that before. It was nice to see Keanu Reeves and Carrie-Anne Moss though. I’ve known, and worked for, the director who made the film for a long time, and I actually got the job through her. I got to know the Wachowski sisters on V for Vendetta; that was the first time I worked with them, and I thought they were great and got along well with them. On Cloud Atlas I did the fight choreography for the two of them; on Matrix: Resurrections I was a stunt performer for Lana Wachowski, her sister Lilly was no longer on board. The work was okay for me. I knew all the stuntmen; we did a lot of stunts in that scene [an explosion scene] I was in, and it was fun.

Michael Bornhütter (on the left), and Manuel Werling (on the right)

Grégoire Canlorbe: How do you assess the stunt prowess of those actors—like Jean-Paul Belmondo, Jackie Chan, or Tom Cruise—doing their own stunts?

Michael Bornhütter: Very interesting question. To an extent, young actors are all Belmondo who are fit, who are go-getter, who do a lot of their own stuff; all have to meet their physical limitations someday though. Even Jackie Chan, however fit he may continue to be nowadays, has six doubles now.

Anyway, once you start working in America, it becomes difficult for a lead actor to do a lot of his own stunts; because if he gets injured, no insurance will pay for it. Some Hollywood actors, like Tom Cruise, do a lot of their stunts; but I don’t think some performer, even Tom Cruise, can really be covered by insurance if he says: “I will make all my stunts myself.” There are certain things Jackie Chan wouldn’t even do himself if he were still working in America; the risk is just too great that he would injure himself and then stop shooting. I know he hurt himself a few times in Hong Kong on Hong Kong productions; but it’s handled differently there. The man is put in plaster, then the plaster is painted on and then he continues.

Grégoire Canlorbe: David Worth’s Kickboxer enjoys everlasting fame and popularity alongside martial artists, stuntmen, and the public at large. How do you feel about it?

Michael Bornhütter: I find that film to be pretty good. It’s like the other movie with Ryan Gosling: it’s just fiction, a romantic idea. There has to be a story, and the fights have to be choreographed in such a way that whoever is supposed to win wins; that means, of course, like in Rocky, you don’t see a real failure. If a boxer had to analyze the Rocky films, he would laugh his head off at how the fight goes in there; everyone still likes the fights and it’s great.

One reason why Kickboxer has been so popular in the stunt profession may be that it was released at a time when a new generation of stunt people in Germany—we were just mesmerized by all those Jackie Chan movies—was trying to bring that Hong Kong spirit to the German movies, and to fight differently than what was expected from us at the time. I remember I was told then somehow: “Hey, this looks too much like martial arts, don’t do it;” but there were no fight choreographers in the 80s and 90s. The director said somehow: “Show them how to do the scene,” and it wasn’t called fight choreographer; that only came out in 2000 or at the end of the 90s. Anyway we could identify to the way those fights in Kickboxer were choreographed and shot, in a Hong Kong vein; but, of course, Kickboxer also contributed to making martial arts in movie increasingly popular alongside the German public at large.

Grégoire Canlorbe: Thank you for your time. Please feel free to add anything.

Michael Bornhütter: There are some prizes I received; but for me it’s more important to do some nice work, I don’t need a nomination really.

Transcribers: Davide Daniele Jakubowski;
& Grégoire Canlorbe with the help of Sonix AI

That conversation was originally published by Bulletproof Action, on 20 September 2022

A conversation with Mark Stas, for Bulletproof Action

by Grégoire Canlorbe · Mai 16, 2023

Mark Stas is a Belgian, South Korea-born martial artist, actor, screenwriter, and producer. The founder of a martial art, the Wing Flow System, he starred in features such as Borrowed Time 3 and English Dogs in Bangkok. Besides directing, writing, and producing short movie Emerging from the Shadows (in which he acted), he wrote At the Edge, a short movie that is based on his own experience and which he acted in.

He was an award winner in three different projects he was involved in, namely Emerging From the Shadows, At the Edge, and Borrowed Time 3. An award-winning choreographer for Borrowed Time 3, he received the award of “Best Ensemble” at the “Los Angeles Actors Award” for his acting as Inspector Chan in Borrowed Time 3.

One the newest projects Mark Stas is being involved with is Abel Ernest Tembo’s feature Funayurei, which is based on a screenplay by Grégoire Canlorbe, and in which Mark Stas both serves as an executive producer and as a lead actor alongside Manuel Werling and Ron Smoorenburg.

Grégoire Canlorbe: You were given the nickname of the Belgian Bruce Lee. Do you find it to be somewhat reductive?

Mark Stas: It all depends on the point of view, but it’s a real honour to be compared to him of course. He is the legend himself, unbeatable in many aspects whether it’s in his martial arts spirit and skills, his personal training creativity or his performance in movies. He paved the path for so many and surely inspired me along my martial arts path.

Strangely I never really practiced his JKD. But I share 100% his tremendous focus and determination to become the best in what he did.

I could only say reductive in the sense that I developed differently in martial arts: inspired by him to become the best possible version of myself through 100% dedication and personal training.

Grégoire Canlorbe: Do you believe Bruce Lee to have been offered an appropriate treatment in Quentin Tarantino’s Once Upon a Time in Hollywood?

Mark Stas: Here has been a lot polemic. I can underling though the react of his daughter Shannon Lee.

But I also think it’s mere a point of view and although I’m a huge fan of Bruce Lee myself, sometimes there is a particular reason. I read for example what Mike Moh (who portrays Bruce Lee in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood) wrote in his interview:

“In the film it was a challenge I got the first point — I knocked him on his ass first. And Bruce at that time was so cocky and maybe got a little excited and he didn’t know Cliff Booth has killed dozens of people with his bare hands — and that’s what people may not realize up until that moment in the film,” he said. “It’s a hugely important scene — what better way to show how dangerous Cliff is than for him to show up and even match him for a little bit with Bruce?”… “I can see how people might think Bruce got beat because of the impact with the car, but you give me five more seconds and Bruce would have won,” Moh continued. “So I know people are going to be up in arms about it, but when I went into my deep dive of studying Bruce, he more than anybody wanted people to know he’s human.”

But we all know how big his influence was and still is. They forget maybe he was cocky but in the sixties, times weren’t as tolerant as today towards Asians (I recall the fact that Hollywood preferred David Carradine over Bruce Lee because he was too Asian…). And to survive in the world, especially in the movie world he had to be strong and prove himself.

Such a presentation of Bruce Lee can never destroy his inspiration and knowledge he left in this world even after 50 years.

Grégoire Canlorbe: How do you sum up the Wing Flow System, and its specificities with respect to the Wing Chun?

Mark Stas: It’s a personal martial art vision which wasn’t really meant in the beginning to be promoted publicly.

Highly influenced by Wing Tsun, and trained by the best masters in this particular style, I went for personal reasons my own way after 33 years martial arts training. It’s characterised by highly precise and perfect controlled attacks and defences, which are linked to a highly developed economy of motion and specific body mechanics. On top of that it has the soft-hard (yin-yang) aspect woven in the actions, where especially in close quarter it excels. When linked to a strategy and tactics, one will know that power or speed alone can be beaten (look at The Art of War to understand how strategy is woven into intelligent action).

The difference with Wing Chun is that with everything I learned, studied and the experience I gathered, I had to kick out many movements or concepts in order to find something that could fit my needs as a martial artist. Many call it an improved version but others can claim their so called traditional wing chun as better with the full curriculum (but what serves theory if in practise they lack understanding of principles and body mechanics, let alone when demonstrating it…).

I simply put it as a personal expression, thanks to my experience and hard work. Since it’s a personal system, it’s not always easy to structure for others a system that personally fits. But there exist a full teaching program where the most interesting part starts after the core levels (we distinguish a basic core, intermediate and advanced core block): all these levels are mandatory levels to develop the practitioner. Compare it also to for example Karate where at reaching the black belt, real training can start.

Wing Flow System (WFS) has a strong but simple self defence concept which attracted the main instructor of the RAID (Special Force) in Lyon, France and many champions and high level champions in Brazil or Thailand witnessed WFS with success. People just need to understand that with WFS you enter in the ‘art’ and not purely competition area. Long term vision and development are essential since we all grow older and the bodily capacities and mind changes over time. I place WFS in the category of longevity martial art without being too much mystic about skills. It’s all about correct use of body structure, hard and persistent training and of course correct guidance if speaking about in-depth details.

But as they say, there is no accounting for tastes.

Mark Stas (on the right) with Grégoire Canlorbe (on the left)

Grégoire Canlorbe: How do you react to the claim that, just like absolute truth in the field of ideas is unattainable and only approachable, and only approached through competition between ideas, perfection in the field of martial arts is unattainable and only approachable, and only approached through the experience of fighting?

Mark Stas: In martial arts what is truth? How to measure? Your question is a delicate one.

Every martial art has a specific purpose, a sense. It all started with the origin of a martial art and how it developed over the years.

We are largely influenced by what is on social media or the broadcasted highly paid boxing, MMA fights and so on. Sports gather people or create a certain atmosphere but martial arts practise is to me more a personal and individual fascinating way of life. You become a specialist when you train what is necessary to become one, especially in martial arts. It’s true that is has been proven that certain arts have more potential to be victorious than other arts. But in my opinion, why some martial arts fail in the sports area is mainly because of the lack of good instructors who can teach the specific combat concepts useable in combat sports.

Ironically a martial art has limits in the sports area due to the limits imposed. But the reason why it fails in the sports area is because 99% of all martial arts practitioners don’t train as intensively as boxing or MMA practitioners who compete. Martial arts have a lot of techniques whereas in combat sports not as many techniques are necessary: an extraction is needed and these must be combat ready.

Martial artists are in general more lazy and live on false hope. I can say as a martial artist I train a lot. But I couldn’t even compare to high level sports athletes who train 5 times more than me. Imagine the average martial artist… But martial arts compensate this comparison in a ring or on the mat by training methodologies unique in their genre.

But again, there exist all levels of martial artists, which go from horrible to excellent. It takes experience and an eye for details to detect great from good and mediocre from decent. When I improve my martial arts skills, I want to come to perfect execution in the feeling of it. I’m a fervent believer of practicing one movement a thousands times, which can be a beginners advice but absolutely to an advanced martial artist it will become a must to go the level of excellence.

Grégoire Canlorbe: How do you assess that movie saga starring Donnie Yen as Ip Man?

Mark Stas: Donnie Yen did a great performance in Ip Man and it contributed highly to the fame of Wing Chun. He is a fantastic martial arts actor and he deserves the gory he worked so hard for.

But distinguish movie and real Wing Chun practice. If I have to use my critical martial arts eye, it’s very well choreographed but a minor detail I would mention is that some actions are exaggerated. But that’s mere my own opinion. As a huge Wing Chun fan, I look forward seeing new Wing Chun movie creations.

Grégoire Canlorbe: You’ve been in Bangkok for the filming of English Dogs in Bangkok. When comparing the Bangkok lifestyle with that of Brussels, Paris, or London, what are those differences that strike you most?

Mark Stas: I lived 3 months in Bangkok and it was a unique period in my life and my movie career started there, although it was not foreseen that way at first.

Bangkok, being a very busy metropole, it has really calming parks where I found this peace when I did my daily training. The temples and Buddhas are very impressive, which I loved a lot. I am a huge fan of Thai food and of course I enjoyed every single meal I ate there. Imagine the price quality of the food over there.

The atmosphere is different from Europe and the kindness and smiles appearing on the faces of the Thai people are unique. There exists also the other side of the city, which attracts tourists, but each has to judge for himself which beauty to discover in this amazing city.

Nevertheless I hold a very good memory thanks to Ron Smoorenburg who at first invited me over and got me involved in some movies. I could meet talented producers such as Daniel Zirilli or Dean Alexandrou and of course Byron Gibson and fantastic actors and stuntmen.

Grégoire Canlorbe: How do you sum up the tale of your dual collaboration with Ron Smoorenburg, and with Byron Gibson?

Mark Stas: It was thanks to some of my videos that Ron discovered me on social media. We communicated and he invited me over. I was very busy at that time and only after a while after a difficult period in my life I made a break and left for Thailand. He wanted to see if I was that really good: the rest is history.

He presented my to Byron, since he was still filming his English Dogs in Bangkok: after seeing our first fight scene, Byron wanted me to do a second fight scene for the same movie. Thanks to that first fight scene, I got the chance to play a part in Dean’s movie, Haphazard.

Grégoire Canlorbe: Your fight with Ron Smoorenburg is a climactic point in English Dogs in Bangkok. Please tell us about the way it was choreographed, executed, and shot.

Mark Stas: First the luck was that Ron and I were from the beginning in very good harmony, although we practice different arts. So after creating the fight scene, I always film it and overview it to make changes. We rehearsed the changes and we shot the fight scene. Ron is very good in placing the camera angle and together with Byron they shot the full fights rather quickly. Byron himself is very dynamic in the way he shoots. With a powerful editing, Ron did an amazing job and luckily I could give him some pointers helping him for my movements, and the result is very nice for my first movie appearance.

Grégoire Canlorbe: How is At the Edge exactly based on your own experience?

Mark Stas: Around 2015 or 2014, together with Tomo, my long term student and assistent we made some quality videos and he introduced me to the director Lorenzo Vanin. After a great video we created, I wrote a part of my life which was then used to create a short movie with them. I told them I will be in Thailand but we could film over there. I made arrangements to bring them over and after hard work to create the full short, we shot it in Bangkok.

I got many messages from people who found a true message and strength in it for their lives. At an emotional depth, although at a highlight in martial arts, there was this turning point, which made me to decide to take a break and leave Belgium. This short movie traces back this moment in my life (without now entering in details).

It was put visually very good by the director Lorenzo Vanin, some parts couldn’t be as I expected due to limited possibilities although I’m proud of the result. All actors did also a great job.

Grégoire Canlorbe: You’re fluent in Flemish, English, French, German, and Portuguese. Which of those languages do you find to be most appropriate to express love-related things?

Mark Stas: Luckily I only need to express my love in one language. I’m not sure if Dutch would be the easiest way to express deep feelings although I don’t speak my mother tongue so often.

Grégoire Canlorbe: How do you remember your collaboration with David Worth who served as a cinematographer on Borrowed Time 3?

Mark Stas: Knowing he would co-produce Borrowed Time 3 was a real honor! Movies like Bloodsport or Bronco Billy are memorable references in the movie world even after 35 years. His experience contributed a lot in Borrowed Time 3 and meeting him was for me a true milestone. He’s a big man.

Grégoire Canlorbe: Would you be ready to return as Inspector Chan in a new sequel to Borrowed Time?

Mark Stas: Borrowed Time has something powerful, well created by Alan Delabie, and there exist some ways to create spin offs, etc. If there would be a proposal with a good script, then definitely.

Grégoire Canlorbe: When it comes to the art of movie directing, how do you compare the respective techniques and ways of proceeding of Alan Delabie (on Borrowed Time 3), and of Taffy Edwards (on English Dogs in Bangkok)?

Mark Stas: They have their own way to create and direct movies and that’s great, cause the individual vision in creating makes the difference instead of copying the same. Both movies have a different action idea. Both directors have a different martial arts background: the Karate and Nunchaku for Alan Delabie, while Taffy Edwards loved Greco-Roman wrestling.

This also influences the action scenes they wanted to create, although I could show a more Asian fighting style in English Dogs in Bangkok. (We can’t forget that the story is based on a true story.) Some parts of English Dogs in Bangkok reminded me of some great movies, although the English touch is visible compared to Borrowed Time 3, which goes in the direction of the eighties action movies.

Grégoire Canlorbe: Would you seize the opportunity to act in a movie by Wong Kar-wai, who directed The Grandmaster starring Tony Leung as Ip Man?

Mark Stas: The cinematography is marvelous and I really loved how it was displayed. The majestic details are amazing. When I saw the movie, I totally enjoyed it. Different as the Donnie Yen’s Ip Man movies but I place it visually on a higher scale. Although many didn’t like it as much as Ip Man because the Wing Chun was less pronounced, but to me the aesthetic was perfectly woven in the action. I would definitely say yes to Wong Kar-wai.

Grégoire Canlorbe: One of your most recent achievements is Emerging from the Shadows. Please tell us about it.

Mark Stas: What started as a fight scene idea became an award winning short movie: who wouldn’t be proud of this?

I was very lucky to have Ron Smoorenburg (yes again him) by my side for the main part I created in Italy. But I left it aside due to a lack of quality at first (no budget was planned and filmed with my iPhone without a real experience). Then when one of the actors, Max Repossi died prematurely, I decided to finish the short. I created a powerful introduction and an original opening credits (which by the way won an award), I worked hard in the editing. I could get the help from my friend Lina for the Japanese part in it and thanks to the help of Tomo for the colouring, but Jan De Hul did a huge job for the main color grading. And we obtained the best possible result ever.

Finally it was a short movie in memory of Max and this sad tragedy helped me to continue to work hard to not let the project in vain.

The few articles written were more than positive and I’m very proud with my first full creation, for which I won a Special Jury Award (Best Actor) or Best Action Short, Best Opening Credits, Critic’s Choice Award (Best Director) or the Award of Prestige for Best Choreography.

Grégoire Canlorbe: What can you let us glimpse of that character you’re acting as in Funayurei—Genji?

Mark Stas: The story is very well written (thanks to the talent of Grégoire Canlorbe) and I was attracted by the character of Genji, which was presented to me. He is the leader of a mercenaries group to find the legendary Funayurei, who is like a ghost. He has this more philosophical side which is woven into his character. His fighting skills are highly efficient but very exquisite and only he would be capable to capture the Funayurei, with whom he has a certain bond.

The story has a very good intrigue between the Funayurei and Genji. We are still in a debut phase, but it promises to be a unique and very interesting movie concept. There are some high level actors involved such as Ron Smoorenburg or Manuel Werling. The director Abel Ernest has put a high standard, but I believe it can become a worthy project with story surprises. I really look forward.

Grégoire Canlorbe: Spiritually speaking, do you rather consider yourself a man from the East, or one from the West?

Mark Stas: I grew up in Europe, more precisely in Belgium but I traveled a lot around the world. I visited Asia around 7 times. But deep inside I was always attracted by the Asian culture besides of course martial arts, which were since my childhood my biggest passion.

I think I’m spiritually more Asian but with a European touch. I was deeply influenced by Asian books such as Art of War, Hagakure, Tao Te Ching and the philosophy of Bruce Lee. Although I love the readings of Aristotle, Marcus Aurelius or Paulo Coelho. Martial art practice goes hand in hand with spirituality: form training and individual training are tools to develop one’s spirituality.

Grégoire Canlorbe: Thank you for your time. Is there anything you would like to add?

Mark Stas: With passion and pursuing one’s dreams and vision, a lot can be achieved. Never let negative critics abandon your believes. Work hard, surround yourself by the best, cooperate intelligently cause no one can do everything by himself and go for it. Thank you for this interview Grégoire.

That conversation was initially published on Bulletproof Action, in May 2023

A conversation with Ron Smoorenburg, for Bulletproof Action

by Grégoire Canlorbe · Mai 1, 2023

Ron Smoorenburg is a Dutch martial artist, actor, stuntman, and fight choreographer. He is notably known for his respective fights with Scott Adkins in Ninja: Shadow of a Tear, with Michael Jai White in Never Back Down: No Surrender, and—above all—with Jackie Chan in Benny Chan’s and Jackie Chan’s Who Am I? He currently lives in Thailand.

One the newest projects Ron Smoorenburg is being involved with, here as an actor, is feature Funayurei, which is being directed by Abel Ernest Tembo from a screenplay by Grégoire Canlorbe.

Grégoire Canlorbe: You started your practicing martial arts at the early age of seven, in Netherlands. At the time of your youth, were martial arts, and those movies centered on martial arts, as popular in Netherlands as they were, say, in America?

Ron Smoorenburg: Actually it was the best time ever in the 80’s early 90’s and I’m very happy to be born in this generation. These days movies were motivating, actors looked ripped and movies had great training sessions on music, there were lots of martial art movies on VHS video cassette, I remember watching Karate Kid on a birthday party and we all stood up and jumped around doing kicks, a start of a journey which never stopped since then. We also had this series called ‘The Master’ a ninja tv series, all the kids were making ninja stars and literally playing ninja outside. When I was 12 I saw Young master on tv from Jackie Chan and a few years later JCVD’s Bloodsport came out and No Retreat No Surrender movies we basically watched everyday till there was no sound anymore.

Grégoire Canlorbe: How did Jackie Chan notice you, and end up hiring you to play the strongest of the two opponents at the end of Who Am I?

Ron Smoorenburg: My boss in the office I worked saw an article about Jackie Chan casting for 300 extras in his movie shooting in Holland. I asked half a day off to send a letter and pictures to the agency in Rotterdam. After pushing a lot I was chosen out of 1000 applicants to become an extra.

I had to play 3 days as a business guy in the background and you can actually see me in one of the scenes. After the Dutch local stunt team laughed about my ambition and literally ridiculed me I asked one of the JC team members if I can do action, he asked me to give him a showreel. I was a graphic designer so the same night I made up a cover like I was already some kind of action guy in movies. I just had the record highest (kick 11 feet) on national tv and I always did movie fight demo’s on martial art events. I also was the first Karateka doing a free style Kata – A karate form on music and I had all of this on tape.

And the next day after the team of JC saw the video in a lunch break they called me over to do the same moves live in front of them. They said I was the best out of 20 guys auditioning for the role of the final fight scene. 10 minutes later someone came to take measurements for the suit I had to wear in the final fight. It was like winning the lottery but another challenge emerged.

Grégoire Canlorbe: Did you have some trouble adapting to the quick rhythmic movements of Jackie Chan?

Ron Smoorenburg: To answer this question the best is that you can compare it with putting someone in a racecar who never drove a Formule 1 race. Even though I am a martial artist all my life, fighting someone like Jackie, top of the top level in a 1^st movie ever is definitely a challenge.

I was always looking at JCVD doing splits high kicks, and JCVD doesn’t really use these rhythms Jackie uses. Even action veterans like Scott Adkins and Eric Jacobus admit that this HK style isn’t easy in the beginning and especially fighting these stars with the added pressure as well.

I managed to pick it up. Sadly in the beginning they let another stuntman Brad Allen do a combo for me which I wasn’t even allowed to try before Jackie got a little upset, in the documentary they reversed it so they show Jackie got t little upset then bringing the stunt double, but that wasn’t the case so I felt a little bit hurt by this and it did even affect my career a little.

In reality every stuntman should know that fighting Jackie isn’t easy and even his team members came to me saying after 15 years they were still nervous fighting Jackie. So what can we do? I have to see it positively and learning the hard way and having lots of pressure is part of the game sometimes. This is my big dream and no one will take it away, that’s why I never stopped.

To be honest every movie after this experience was more easy as I was used to this huge amount of pressure. I can tell you even people who are in the stunt biz for years would still have a challenge right now if they have to fight Jackie, believe me.

Grégoire Canlorbe: What is your view of the evolution of Jackie Chan’s career following the retrocession of Hong Kong?

Ron Smoorenburg: I think he should leave politics to the politicians, he came from HK and he has a huge fanbase there, and things are sensitive.

Grégoire Canlorbe: How did it feel to act as a villain in Clarence Fok Yiu-leung’s Martial Angels?

Ron Smoorenburg: Actually he gave me a hell of an opportunity but with acting I was still beginning so I definitely could have done better now. It was a cool movie with 7 action girls and a great concept.

Grégoire Canlorbe: Please tell us about the backstage of that fight in Prachya Pinkaew’s Tom-Yum-Goong in which you’re one of many fighters facing Tony Jaa.

Ron Smoorenburg: When I came to Thailand to do a European tv series, I visited the set of this movie and met the director Prachya, I literally did the same as I did with Who am I? I had to show some moves to the director and they asked me if I was ok to be in a group fight because they already shot all other fights, I was happy to be doing action in Asia and with a cool action star like Tony Jaa so I agreed. We got on really well. He actually gave me a real good kick straight in the face and that was very memorable.

Grégoire Canlorbe: How do you account for the popularity of Thailand when it comes to choosing the main location for the plot in an action movie?

Ron Smoorenburg: Thailand got it all, urban, forest, alleys, rooftops, mountains, beaches, also some very gritty and characteristic streets in Bangkok from rough to high class. You can get a lot of things done in Thailand.

Grégoire Canlorbe: After spending so many years in Thailand, do you sense your heart and soul have become those of a Thai man?

Ron Smoorenburg: Yes I have this sense of freedom and life which I don’t find in the west, Bangkok is alive day and night, I train in the night, also the Thai smile and general happiness is here for a fact and when I go back to Holland I see people running faster and looking more serious to be honest.

Grégoire Canlorbe: You acted in Nicolas Winding Refn’s Only God Forgives. Esthetically speaking, how do you assess the fight opposing Vithaya Pansringarm to Ryan Gosling?

Ron Smoorenburg: I’m not a fan of it, its not really memorable, I feel its just choreo to be choreo.

Grégoire Canlorbe: Do you share the common line of criticism that the way of filming the stunt and action stuff in John Wick movies lacks any true artistic dimension, thus boiling down to a mere “technician” work?

Ron Smoorenburg: I felt that for the first 3 parts, there were no rewinders for me like the movies I described when I was young. But John Wick 4, did change it for me, having people like Donnie Yen, Scott Adkins, Marko Zaror they gave flavor to it. The other JW parts were more like ok there’s another guy in a black suit coming, and you just know he’s going to lose the same way as all the others did.

Grégoire Canlorbe: You fought Scott Adkins in Ninja: Shadow of a Tear. How was the fight choreographed, executed, and shot? How do you sum up what makes the prowess of Isaac Florentine in filming action?

Ron Smoorenburg: This was a scene where we had to do all in 1 take and this is very cool that Isaac did this together with Choreographer Tim Man who is a genius. It was shot very well and we did have 1 rehearsal for it (Not like Jackie Chan where they do it straight away on the spot) In the original choreo I actually did a few jump kicks, but it was cut for some reason, its sad because I also like to show stuff. Still this fight is very nice and Scott Adkins is a beast (endurance wise) when it comes to shooting.

Grégoire Canlorbe: You acted in Michael Jai White’s Never Back Down: No Surrender, in which you fought White himself. How do you assess Michael Jai White as a movie director, and as a martial artist?

Ron Smoorenburg: I felt he was very good at punches besides his kicks, he’s a real martial artist and you can see and feel he loves it. Also to me he’s always a gentleman.

Grégoire Canlorbe: In Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li, you acted alongside the late Michael Clarke Duncan. Did you have much interaction with him behind the camera?

Ron Smoorenburg: Not too much but he was always smiling, he’s super humble and what a personality. Also if you see where he came from before he became an actor it’s more than respect what he did.

Grégoire Canlorbe: To you, does Desperate Housewife’s Neal McDonough’s portrayal of Bison in Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li compare with that of Raúl Juliá in Street Fighter?

Ron Smoorenburg: No it doesn’t work, they shouldn’t do these things.

Grégoire Canlorbe: You were cast in Death Note: L Change the Word. Did you read the manga, Death Note?

Ron Smoorenburg: Yes it’s super cool and I’m happy to be part of it.

Grégoire Canlorbe: How did you enter the world of Bollywood? How does it feel to be part of the latter?

Ron Smoorenburg: We have Bollywood movies shooting in Thailand, and some directors remembered me and the stunt team and ask us to came over to Bollywood and south India for other movies. It’s always a challenge getting your money though in 90% of the cases to be honest. And they are not that safe as well. The coolest movie I did was definitely Brothers with Akshay Kumar with a cool MMA fight in the ring. That movie also had good drama and was a remake of Warrior.

Grégoire Canlorbe: What can you tell us of that new project you’re being involved with as an actor, alongside Mark Stas—Funayurei?

Ron Smoorenburg: I’m very excited about this project as I will fight alongside Mark. Mark is amazing and for me a new action star not less than Donnie Yen, Jackie or Jet Li, for real. Marks action style and adaptation, implementation is amazing. Real time on the spot he can even adapt if needed. He’s a true master. I actually contacted him years ago and he came to Thailand, We did 2 big fights in English Dogs the movie and it’s very memorable. We always look out for the next time to fight and one of the main reasons I upgrade myself so hard is to prepare for my next fight.

I created my own movie style Recharge and I feel it’s the perfect to fight Mark with Wing Flow. I love Mark and really he deserves all the best. Having Mark is having a Diamond on board. Every investor/director/producer should be very happy to have him, and I’m happy to work alongside or fight with him.

Grégoire Canlorbe: Thank you for your time. Is there anything you would like to add?

Ron Smoorenburg: Currently RECHARGE, the fighting style I developed is going really well, its based on chain lighting and has lots of unique combos and some unique kicks I designed from scratch. The message I have for performers and artists is to always be unique and creative, never follow the herd. Now I’m going to USA with my Management, Hollywood productions, Varol Porsemay to set a foot on the ground there. I realize I have to offer something, that’s why I work day and night on it. It’s like as a car which can have a nice a cover but also needs a good engine. The stronger the engine is the better the car, so keep working on yourself, and with Love… you get what you can carry. As I always say, LIFE IS ACTION.

That conversation was originally published by Bulletproof Action, in April 2023

A conversation with David Worth, for Bulletproof Action

by Grégoire Canlorbe · Mar 30, 2023

David Worth is an American director of photography and film director. He contributed as cinematographer to more than twenty films, including Bloodsport, Any Which Way You Can, and Bronco Billy. He directed movies such as Warrior of the Lost World (which he also wrote), Lady Dragon, Hard Knocks, and Kickboxer.

Grégoire Canlorbe: In Warrior of the Lost World, a 1983 Italian production,you had the honor to direct legendary actor Donald Pleasence [Dr Loomis in the Halloween saga]. How do you remember this collaboration?

David Worth: I was very honored to work with a gentleman, with the acting acumen and the acting skills of Donald Pleasence, who had been in so many great films. He was in the original Dr. No, he was in Halloween. He was in a great film by Roman Polanski. I’m trying to remember the name of that one. He was in the film The Great Escape with Steve McQueen. He’s truly a great, great, great actor! So I was very pleased to work with him. He was only there for a week of our short schedule, doing his part as Prossor, but he was very prepared, very intense. He even insisted that Persis Khambatta spit in his face for real when it was required for the scene, even though we could have faked it because it was done in cuts. But he insisted that Persis spit in his face to motivate him as Prossor, and I thought that was extraordinary! Mr. Pleasence was a very brilliant gentleman to work with.

Grégoire Canlorbe: What is your view, generally speaking, of the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s Italian “genre movie,” i.e., giallo, cannibal film, and postapocalyptic? And of movie-directors such as Lamberto Bava, Dario Argento, Umberto Lenzi, and Ruggero Deodato?

David Worth: Dario Argento’s work, I know very well, as well as his daughter’s, Asia Argento. I know their work very well. The others I don’t know because I was never a follower of many of the post-apocalyptic films. Any of the cannibal films, I don’t really know those works. But Dario Argento, I thought, was a fine filmmaker, and he made a lot of very interesting, horrific films in the ’70s and ’80s.

Grégoire Canlorbe: Shark Attack 2 is notoriously better—and much more generous in terms of “shark attacks”—than its predecessor. How did you manage to save that saga that started so poorly?

David Worth: The late, great producer at New Image, Danny Lerner, I had known him for 10 years, and he gave me the script for Shark Attack 2 and asked me to go to Cape Town in South Africa to make it. When I looked at the first Shark Attack, I realized it was a problem because it’s called Shark Attack, but there are virtually no shark attacks in the movie. So from doing second unit work with the great second unit director Glenn Randall and from being a cinematographer and editor for many years, I knew that we needed a lot of pieces to make a shark attack work. So I began to break apart the sequences and analyze what I needed, and I needed several things. First, I needed a real dummy shark, 25 or 30 feet long, that could be towed with a jet ski to go right by the boats, so we could see the size of it. Then, I needed several biting heads, big biting heads that could be operated by stunt divers, and that we could bite the actors with. Then, I needed fins that could be seen on top of the water, that could be driven by stunt actors, stunt divers so that I could have the shark turning left or right or attacking. And then, I also used a lot of real shark stock footage. I used real shark stock footage swimming toward the camera, going left, going right. Then, I would use the pieces that I invented to tie the story together, and we it made it work very, very well.

Grégoire Canlorbe: Were you approached to work on those other cult shark-series that are Mega Shark and Sharknado?

David Worth: No, I was never asked. I was never approached. I wasn’t even approached when New Image did their last shark movie that Danny Lerner directed. I had done my share of shark attack movies. I liked the genre, I had fun with it, and I was ready to move on.

Grégoire Canlorbe: The diptych formed by Lady Dragon and its sequel-remake is a climactic point in your career as a movie director. How did you get the best from Cynthia Rothrock?

David Worth: Cynthia is still and was once one of the very best actors in martial arts. I loved her work. I loved working with her. Even though they are martial artists, they are actors first. I just had to sit her down and talk with her about the part, about her responsibilities, about her emotions. And as long as I gave it the time, she would come up with the proper emotion. The thing I remember most about Cynthia is, we were working in Indonesia. There was no craft service. There was no place to go to the bathroom. I said, “Where’s the bathroom?” They pointed out there. That tree, that’s the bathroom. She was tough. She had been trained in Hong Kong Action! Cynthia started her career there in Hong Kong where they treat stuntmen like disposable cups. They just go through them. And she was really quite brilliant to work with, Cindy was out there every single day in the heat and the dust and the dirt, doing all the kicks and all her own stunt work. I continue to admire her so very much and would be thrilled to work with her again…

Grégoire Canlorbe: Would you be ready to direct a third installment in the Lady Dragon saga, starring Rothrock again?

David Worth: I already have a part three for Lady Dragon. If she’s ready, I’m ready to do it anytime. I have the script. Unfortunately, no one’s interested. They say that Cynthia and I are too old… But I’m ready and I know Cynthia is ready. She’s beautiful. She’s still in shape and still beautiful. I see her on Facebook & Instagram every day.

Grégoire Canlorbe: Your work as a cinematographer on Bloodsport is never so moving, impactful, as in those scenes featuring an alone Jean-Claude Van Damme strolling, meditating, and training in Hong Kong with Stan Bush’s song, “On My Own,” as a background score. Please tell us about the creative process behind such images.

David Worth: Bloodsport was a very unique film to be part of. I was at the right place at the right time. Jean-Claude was at the right place at the right time. Everything came together in Hong Kong. We were the smallest film done by Cannon films that year. They were busy doing big $20 and $30 million movies, and we had a little two and a half… $2,300,000 movie in Hong Kong. Nobody paid attention to us. Jean-Claude was at the beginning of his career, and again, he was an actor first. So, he was ready and willing to do anything and everything to show his acting talent, as well as his martial arts. We captured all the footage we needed of him, and then later in post-production, we found the right song to use to help the mood of that scene, which turned out very, very well. He was brilliant and still is a brilliant martial artist and actor.

Grégoire Canlorbe: Please tell us about the filming of that scene with Jean-Claude Van Damme overhanging the city like a demigod contemplating Greece from the summit of Olympus?

David Worth: When he’s up on the top of the hill with his legs spread over looking the whole city? We took a tram all the way up to the top with all our equipment and lined it up so that we could get that shot. It wasn’t easy. But everyone in Hong Kong was willing to help out and help us to make a good film. We had a great Hong Kong producer named Charles Wang at Salon Films, who was actually the godfather to my son, David, and a great man. And he’s not with us any longer. But he was so helpful in getting both Bloodsport and Kickboxer made with the best possible crew and the best possible Panavision equipment on the planet.

Grégoire Canlorbe: Did JCVD and Michel Qissi contribute to the movie’s filming at another level than their acting (respectively as Kurt Sloane and as Tong Po)?

David Worth: They did because they were both martial artists. Jean-Claude mostly did the choreography. He did most of the choreography for all of the fights because that’s his area of expertise, and I encouraged him to do it. Michel was the very, very bad man, Tong Po, in that movie. He’s a sweet man. He’s very gentle. He’s a real gentleman. But in that movie, he played a very evil man, Tong Po.

Grégoire Canlorbe: How did Mark DiSalle exactly contribute to Kickboxer’s directing?

David Worth: I was hired as the director for Kickboxer. I supervised the casting. I polished the script. I storyboarded the entire production. I was there for every “action and cut.” I supervised all of the fights. Now, Jean-Claude was very influential in choreographing all of the fights because that was his area of expertise. But I did all the work of the director, and then Mark DiSalle decided to share my credit just before the film was finished in post-production.

Grégoire Canlorbe: How do you react to the surge of sequels or remakes that Kickboxer or Bloodsport would inspire?

David Worth: First of all, I’m thrilled when anyone can make any film, any time. But I think with Bloodsport and Kickboxer, it’s very difficult to capture the enthusiasm and the camaraderie and the collaboration and the performances and the locations, especially in Hong Kong and Bangkok, that we had when we did Bloodsport and Kickboxer. I know there have been many sequels. I wasn’t involved in any of them. I don’t think they captured what we were able to capture with the original. They may have been much more expensive, but they didn’t have the heart and soul that our films had.

Grégoire Canlorbe: As a cinematographer you collaborated twice with Clint Eastwood. Namely in Clint Eastwood’s Bronco Billy and in Buddy Van Horn’s Any Which Way You Can, both starring Eastwood and his then girlfriend and muse Sondra Locke. Quite a fantastic story! How do you sum it up?

David Worth: This is a very long and detailed question. It would take me an hour to discuss that. I will give you the short version. If you want to see the long version, go to www.amazon.com and order my book Zen & The Art Of Independent Filmmaking. All my filmmaking is in that book. In those hundreds of pages, I go through all my films in detail.

Working with Clint Eastwood happened because of one person, Sondra Locke. I did a little film called Death Game, starring Sondra Locke, Seymour Cassel, and Colleen Camp. After that film had been filming for a week, the director fired the cinematographer, and the producer called me to see if I wanted to take it over. I didn’t want to inherit someone else’s mess, so I asked, “Who’s starring?” When he said, “Sondra Locke, Seymour Cassel, and Colleen Camp”, I said, “Okay, I’m in.” Because I knew Sondra’s work. Sondra had gotten an academy nomination for Heart Is a Lonely Hunter on her first film. Seymour had been nominated for an academy award on John Cassavetes’ film Faces. So I was in. It was a very small production. We only had 13 days to finish what was left to film. Now, they were also shooting wide-screen, anamorphic Panavision. This was my first time using it. I discovered the Panavision camera… even though it was big… it was very ergonomically correct, so I could hand-hold it with no problem. I decided to save time in the production by not using the camera on a tripod, but instead handholding it. I handhold 75 or 85% of that film. We would be sitting in dailies, and I’d say… it would be a closeup of Sondra… and I’d say, “That’s a handhold shot,” and the director, he’d say, “No, it’s not.” I’d say, “Watch it.” Then on screen he would say, “Cut!”, and the camera would go all over the place. That’s how we made it through. It was very long days, but we got it all done.

Sondra, Seymour and Colleen were brilliant. They did a great job. Seymour and the producer had a falling out, and he never came in to do the dubbing. So I ended up having to dub his voice. The film was being edited by someone who did not appreciate the material, and after 6 or 8 weeks the director, Peter Traynor, called Sondra and I to see a screening of a rough cut… It Was Awful. It was horrendous. Sondra was sitting like this the whole time, with her head down, she couldn’t even look at it. During the screening, I kept shouting, “Where’s this shot?”, “Where’s this shot?”, “Where’s this shot?” Finally, after the screening was over, I had the director, take Sandra and me to the editing room, where I was able to find the shots and fix several of the scenes to show him how they hadn’t been cut correctly. So Peter fired the editor and I became the cinematographer and editor on Death Game and finished it professionally. Sondra had asked me, “Please finish this film so I can be proud of it,” and I did. As we know, Sondra went from that film to The Outlaw Josey Wales with Clint Eastwood, and began a 15-year relationship… That was how I got to Clint, because Sondra began nudging Clint about my work.

A couple of years down the road, Sondra and Clint did the film The Gauntlet. It was just those two, Sondra and Clint, up on the big screen, one-on-one. After I’d seen the film, I called her and said, “I’m so proud of you up there, co-starring with Clint”, giving him all he could handle as the actor. I said, “It was a great job.” She said, “Yeah, we had a great time.” But he had a big fight with his cinematographer because he wouldn’t shoot by campfire light. I said, “What? I just shot a whole off-road motorcycle movie by campfire light.” Then Sondra asked me a question, that would change my life as a cinematographer. She said, “You wouldn’t happen to have a reel of that you could drop off for Clint to see, would you?” I said, “Yes, I would.” That’s how Clint saw my work. A couple of years later, he saw more of my work. And that’s how I eventually did Bronco Billy. But it was a long process. It took several years for it to happen.

Grégoire Canlorbe: Boxing, mentorship, and tetraplegia are topics common to your Kickboxer and to Clint Eastwood’s Million Dollar Baby. How do you assess the way those topics are treated in Clint Eastwood’s movie?

David Worth: The only one I really relate to… I don’t relate to boxing, I don’t relate to the medical condition, I do relate to mentoring. We all need mentors, and that film was basically about an old trainer who took this young lady and mentored her into becoming a championship boxer. I relate to that because I had two great mentors in my life that helped me in my cinematography and in lighting and directing, and they were Stanley Kubrick and Clint Eastwood.

Stanley Kubrick, I was able to use him to mentor me because when I was editing Death Game… during the Post-Production of Death Game, I managed to get my hands on a 35-millimeter print of A Clockwork Orange. I had been a fan of that film ever since it was released, but I could never study it because… This was early 1970s. There was no VHS, there was no DVDs, there was, no Online, there was no Netflix, nothing. The only way to study a movie was to see it on the screen. And then, the projectionist would not play it again for you to study your favorite scenes. So, when I got my hands on this 35-millimeter print of A Clockwork Orange I was ecstatic!. I took all my work off the old upright Movieola and put Mr. Kubrick’s work on it… Then I spent hours running it forwards and backwards, & finally I discovered that Mr. Kubrick was building all his lighting into the sets and locations. Do you know Clockwork Orange?

Grégoire Canlorbe: Yes, one of my favorite movies when I was a teenager.

David Worth: You know the scene where Little Alex kills the Cat Lady with the sculpture of the giant phallus? When I was running the film, forward and backward. Suddenly, I hit the break and said: “What the fuck?” I couldn’t believe what I was seeing. Because at the end of that scene, Mr. Kubrick is following the Cat Lady and little Alex 360 degrees around that location. And he’s using a very wide-angle lens, like a 16 or 18-millimeter lens. I could see all four walls, the floor, and the ceiling, and I suddenly realized there were no movie lights. There were NO MOVIE LIGHTS! This was no student film. This was no Roger Corman film. This was a Stanley Kubrick production of a Warner Brothers film that had been nominated for four Academy Awards! I was stunned! I was flabbergasted! I was gobsmacked! I couldn’t believe what I was seeing! I slowly went back and froze the frames where I could see all the lighting… That’s when I discovered exactly what Mr. Kubrick had done! And that was to bring in several light sculptors, one in the form of a spiral, one in the form of a Christmas tree, others in bunches, each containing a lot of 150-watt bulbs. Then he plugged them into the wall sockets, said “We’re lit!” and shot the scene!

Discovering THAT changed my life as a cinematographer. I even wrote an article in the American Cinematographer magazine, entitled, “If it’s good enough for Mr. Kubrick…” Why don’t more of us use this technique? It’s brilliant, because it’s actor-friendly and production friendly. If you build the lighting into the set, you can shoot 360 degrees. You never have to change the lighting when the director says, “Okay, I’m done in this direction. I’m going to shoot in the other direction…” I’ve been on the set where the director says, “Okay, I want to shoot the other way.” The DP says, “Okay, give us two hours to reset the lights.” I say Bullshit! And more importantly Mr. Kubrick said, “Bullshit!”

And he began building all the lighting into the sets of his films, starting with Dr. Strangelove… 2001: A Space Odyssey, Clockwork Orange, and then, of course, the candlelight scenes in Barry Lyndon. This is the technique I brought to Bronco Billy. This is what I brought to Clint Eastwood.

Grégoire Canlorbe: So, the connection between Clint Eastwood’s Bronco Billy and Stanley Kubrick is not only Scatman Crothers who acted in both Bronco Billy and The Shinning released the same year; it is also David Worth.

David Worth: Right! Because I brought the “Kubrickian Technique” of building the lighting into the sets or locations to Bronco Billy! We had a huge circus tent, and I said, “Okay, I want all the lighting built into this tent.” So, up high between the two upright tent poles, I had a connecting pole as well as two additional poles at right angles forming a “T…” Then we placed all our lighting onto these poles and the entire set was lit! I could walk in at 7:30 in the morning, hit the switch, take a reading with my light meter and say, “Okay, f2.8 in every direction, let’s shoot!” We did 40 or 50 setups a day. On a Warner Brothers film starring Clint Eastwood that would normally do 10 or 15 setups a day!

Clint is a very efficient and very fast director. 75% of the time, he prints either the rehearsal or the first take. So everyone is on their toes. They don’t want to displease the Big Guy. So, he always comes in several days ahead of schedule. However, on Bronco Billy, he didn’t come in several days ahead of schedule. As a result of my building the lighting into all the other sets and locations, we came in two and a half weeks ahead of schedule, saving the production over a million dollars! That’s how I got to capture two Clint Eastwood films instead of one.

Grégoire Canlorbe: Did you like Kubrick’s last movie, Eyes Wide Shut?

David Worth: Didn’t like it… However, my only regret is that Stanley Kubrick didn’t get a chance to come into this century. He died in the 1990s. He began as a still photographer and was shooting SLR, single lens reflex 35-millimeter cameras. However, he never got his hands on a DSLR, the digital version. These cameras shoot from ISO 100 all the way up to ISO 400,000. Trust me… He would have stood it on its ear, just like he did the Steadicam! That’s my regret: that Mr. Kubrick never got his hand on the DSLR that had a virtually unlimited ISO!!!

Grégoire Canlorbe: Our interview comes to its end. Is there anything you would like to add?

David Worth: Yes, there is something I would like to add. Clint Eastwood is a brilliant filmmaker. I loved his work, decades before I worked with him. He’s now 92 years old. He’s had an over 50-year relationship with Warner Brothers, doing huge productions: the Dirty Harry films, all very big hits. As well as his Academy Award winners like Mystic River & Million Dollar Baby & Unforgiven!!! The latest corporate-bottom-liner at Warner Brothers just severed their relationship with Clint after 50 years because his last film, Cry Macho didn’t make money. This is a guy who is the icon of icons. He’s been making hit movies longer than anyone has been around in this town. The icon of icons!!! At 92 years old, he should have carte blanche for anything he wants to do from here on out. Carte Fucking Blanche! Instead, these moronic assholes get rid of him because his last $20 million movie didn’t make enough money. And then they spend $200 million on the other big budget crap they churn out, on each of these comic-book-super-duper-hero movies. Have some respect for your elders! The stars who put WB on the map! That’s what I’d like to say!

Grégoire Canlorbe: Thank you for your time. I was wondering: how do you feel about the breakup between Eastwood and Locke?

David Worth: It was an awful breakup. I hated to see it. It should never have happened… I never thought I would even meet Clint. It wasn’t on my radar because I knew I was making my little films on the side streets of Hollywood, and he was: “Clint Eastwood.” It was only because I did that little film, Death Game,… Sondra Locke who was the star of that film, liked my work & when she began working with Clint, she mentioned me, to him… That’s how I got my foot in the door, through the brilliant and insightful and compassionate Sondra Locke. And I’m eternally grateful…

That conversation was originally published on Bulletproof Action, in March 2023

« Previous Page