Falling: The Architecture of Gravity

Jim,

I'm sure you'll get lambasted once again for daring to question some of the filmmaking choices made in "The Dark Knight".

I just want to thank you, though, for highlighting the fall in "Infernal Affairs", which was one of the most unexpected, completely shocking moments I've seen in an action film. That was one of the (many) things that left me so disappointed in "The Departed"...even the stuff Scorsese ripped off, verbatim, in terms of plot development, he still managed to flub in execution. I know going into a remake of a film that I've seen where the story is going...I want to see what choices a director as talented as Scorsese makes in playing the same melody. The death of Martin Sheen's character was robbed of its shocking impact by Scorsese's odd decision to intercut the shot of Sheen flailing in his fall (although to give the film some credit, Sheen's landing allowed for one of the few moments in the film when I actually was impressed by DiCaprio's acting...his confused, panicked reaction in that moment is completely raw and emotional).

I don't think there was anything too spatially incoherent with the fall in "The Dark Knight"...it may not be overpowering in the sense of gravity it conveys, but it at least gets the sense of height across. However, as he does in other moments in the film, Nolan intercuts a "guy minding his own business" shot, which is supposed to generate laughs, I suppose, but grew tired by the time he got to the kids pretending they are shooting cars later in the film.

Just as another example of a fall (well, it's not really a fall actually) that really impressed me with its sense of gravity: I love the shot in Spielberg's "Minority Report" where Tom Cruise breaks out of his automated vehicle (the things that slide along those big tracks, I'm not sure what they're called), gets on top of it, and then has to cling for dear life as the vehicle goes over the ledge of a track and begins descending vertically. When I saw that scene in the theater, I think I clutched my seat.

JE: I don't think think the "TDK" fall is incoherent (not like other sequences in the film, particularly the truck chase). I just think its busier than it needs to be, and the extra cuts do it a disservice. (In my partial re-assembly, the first and third shots cut together into one seamless whole as they arc into the canyon of skyscrapers -- why would you want to break that up???) And, yes, I feel you on the "innocent bystander" bits -- which were unimaginative even as those cliches go. Between those and the pointless 360-degree shots I wanted to throttle somebody. You've reminded me that I have been meaning to re-watch "Minority Report" for years!

Jim,

You had me at hello.

While I'm not a fan of Dark Knight, I admit that I didn't really see the major problems with the bus sequence you analyzed before.

But it's shots like that provide evidence of my feeling that Nolan lacks the ability to or coordinate physical space (or perhaps has no interest in doing so). After watching all of those early clips, the Dark Knight sequence is an eye sore. It hurts to look at. Blur, swish, blur, thump. Never let 'em look at anything more than a second, and they won't know what they're missing.

There are numerous scenes in this film where only the soundtrack provides any coherence.

A perfect example. And I vote "Yes. Better."

JE: You're the ideal audience. I was hoping that, after seeing all the inventive solutions directors had come up with in the earlier clips, the rather routine approach of "TDK" (in IMAX or no) would be shown up.

TDK fall shot, scanners edition: stronger by far.

I agree with you about the fantastic In Bruges coin and man fall shot. It was shocking, and made one /feel/ the fall, the depth of it, and the tragedy of it.

Yours is better. The cut away to the cab driver doesn't bother me too much, but the split-second close-ups baffle me. I have no idea what their purpose is, except to keep a high ASL. And I'm glad I wasn't the only one who thought that was a terrible front-to-side cut just before impact.

I loved the Polanski example. I'm going to have to see that film now.

Do you see The Dark Knight as a particularly egregious example of a director's lack of spatial coordination (and/or needlessly quick editing, which I think it also is) in current mainstream cinema, or are you singling it out because of its immense popularity, both critical and otherwise? I mean, you could level the same criticisms at many major studio films these days, I think.

I hope you enjoy "Minority Report" upon re-viewing it...it may be my 2nd favourite Spielberg film of all time, behind only "Schindler's List" (which I know you're lukewarm on).

Jim,

You've caught one of the few scenes that actually DID bother me while watching The Dark Knight. While it didn't feel as choppy in context, with the momentum of the rest of the film, your isolation of it here does show some poor editing choices, and I think you've created some strong alternatives. I'll be interested to see what you have to say about the truck chase sequence - you've foreshadowed that a few times, and it was actually one of my favorite action sequences in the movie.

Some of the films you've chosen to contrast this sequence with made me pause, however. I remember being struck by the visual ingenuity of The Fall, yet being let down by what struck me as a meandering story with hollow characters. Similarly, In Bruges was filled with beautiful imagery, but its cheap pathos and nasty sense of humor turned me off.

On the other hand, The Dark Knight struck me as a complicated exploration of the actions good people take when confronted with pure evil. Its characters enthralled me, and the moral enigmas it presented have inspired many interesting conversations. With all sincerity, I do think it spoke to our national zeitgeist, and not in some cheap, hot-button way, but with a sense of maturity and honest inquiry.

I suppose what I'm saying here is I think there are two different ways of watching film butting heads in these conversations. I appreciate good direction, but I'd much rather be taken in by a story and forgive a few gaffes than be wowed visually and suffer a bland or messy story. The narrative is much more important to me than the visual narrative. I suspect the opposite is true for you, though I could be wrong, and you can certainly tell me so.

When I watch a film and a shot or cut doesn't agree with me, my initial response is to assume (correctly, I think) that it's a specific choice the director/editor/cinematographer/et al made, and I try to figure out the reasoning behind that choice. After all, a production that cost this much money isn't about to be thrown together slapdash in the editing room. It's helped me dig deeper into films, and discover meanings I hadn't uncovered on the first watch.

One example: in Nolan's previous Batman film, I was unsettled by most of the action sequences - the tight framing, the quick cuts. On further study, it occurred to me that these choices were a motif dealing with Batman's use of fear and subterfuge to disarm his enemies, and suddenly the sequences clicked into place for me. Instead of expecting a slam-bang action sequence, I saw how those scenes played into the larger message of the piece.

I'm not saying I know the method behind this particular shot - indeed, I agree that it probably could have stood for a polish. I do wonder on Nolan's reasoning for the sequence, however.

Jim, I have an interesting query: Considering how so much of the Dark Knight, as you have pointed out, is cinematically flawed, why have so many people reacted to it positively and viscerally?

JE: Really good question. I'm hoping they'll tell us.

I'm gonna say stronger but only for one reason...
the taxi driver.

I think we could have done without him.

Other than that, yes, your way is more visceral Jim. But Lee Smith's version adds in the hands trying to link up, focuses more on the characters panicking and an emotional connection in the moment. But the taxi driver is distracting...

Although, one might also argue that Nolan manages to sneak in one of the city's 'walking dead', a tired cap driver reading what's going on the crazy world of Gotham while sipping his coffee to get 'em through the night... and then crazy Gotham lands on his windshield. Only problem with that explanation is we should then see what the 'crazy Gotham' headline in the paper...

So Nolan semi-hacks a fall in the film. The sequence still works overall. Again, not enough to ruin the movie for me. Though, I do admit... the "In Bruges" fall is better edited and/or directed... Which is maybe easy for me to admit because there isn't a sequence in "In Bruges" that seems wrong to me on repeat viewing.

Ps. Buster Keaton is death-defyingly amazing.

Pps. Do wanna point out though, that "In Bruges" clip of Farrell jumping onto the boat. You can clearly see where they cut to stunt double. I could sit here and complain about how that took me out of the movie while watching but I won't because, in the heat of the moment, it didn't. I didn't notice until scrutinizing that one moment. Much like I was 'in the moment' of the "TDK" fall but now I see it and go... yeah, maybe this could have been better. Maybe that. Life goes on and so does the movie.

JE: Same as in the "This Gun for Hire" clip. One reason it's not so distracting is the simplicity and timing of it. One leap, in one shot, lasting a couple seconds. The "TDK" plunge presents very different challenges. I love seeing the ways different filmmakers tackle them.

You're not addressing the entire lead up to this sequence of shots. It's a shocking moment when the Joker throws Rachel out of the window. There's not much of a standoff beforehand and he does it with little provocation from Batman. The CUs of Rachel falling serve to reinforce the points: 1. that the Joker really did just throw one of the main characters out of a window. 2. to emphasize vicariously that this is Maggie Gyllenhaal plummeting to her death (emphasizing the character as opposed to the stunt/the actress over the stuntwoman). Remember by this point the Joker has dispatched of the police commissioner and the judge but no one that has any emotional weight with the audience. By throwing Rachel out the window he has solidified his character's unpredictable and wanton nature. If the sequence were to play out as you have reedited, all of the emphasis would be placed on the landing. This would beg the question "Did they survive the fall?" as opposed to "Is Batman going to save her?" The cutaway to the cab driver and break in action emphasizes the fact that Batman has indeed saved Rachel. It slows their descent and sets up that they will be safe because they'll land on top of a car (not that this point makes any sense outside of movie logic). I find it far more troublesome that the scene ends at this point - Batman never addresses that the Joker and his goons have been left upstairs with the partygoers and Nolan just cuts to another scene happening the next day.

I just put the Tenant at the top of my Netflix Queue after seeing that fall.

Context, context, context. This is what was missing from the much-maligned post about the getaway bus. Very interesting to see the range of ways for handling this -- and I don't know how anyone can say Nolan's attempt is up to the level of most of these.

Again, I enjoyed The Dark Knight overall, but another "gravity" moment that distracted me immediately was Batman's dropping onto The Scarecrow's getaway van in the parking garage. I'll even give Batman room to have an unerring sense of timing to land so perfectly on a speeding van he can't even see spiraling down the winding ramp below him -- why is the van dead-still when he lands on it, blowing out the windows, etc? Does he have some gravity-altering force-field device that can suddenly make him weigh more than a speeding van? Or is this just defying all logic?

JE: I had this in mind when I did the bus post, but I thought that one would be easier to see because it was a single long take. Maybe not. I had absolutely no idea what was going in in that parking garage scene, or why, or even what I was looking at most of the time.

I think Guy Monitor above nailed it. The sense of moving in and out of the fall simultaneously keeps you with the characters and lets you appreciate the sense of height. Maybe it's because I've grown up in the "MTV generation," but I didn't find the quickness of the cuts difficult to follow at all. And, unlike some others, I liked the cut-aways to the cab driver. Throughout the movie, Nolan gives you little hints like this as to how the people of Gotham are interacting with the storyline, what it's like for them to live in this world that Batman and the Joker are creating. And this is important, given that, more even than Batman, it's Gotham City that makes the important choices in the movie.

Jim --

Great job as always. You're making me re-think my initial 'gut' reaction to "The Dark Knight". I've seen the film three times now and each time gets more tedious that viewing before. I must say I still enjoyed the movie but not as much as I initially wrote on my blog. I'll never change my initial review, because I think that would be wrong, but in my long overdue year-end wrap up I'll talk about why I don't like the that much anymore and I'll point to your wonderful blog entries.

The scene you showcase here is the major problem with the film: it uses smoke and mirrors to distract the viewer from really understanding what's going on. The editing here is atrocious, worthy of a Michael Bay comparison, yet it seems a lot of the people that like the movie are afraid to criticize it the way they would, say a film like "Armageddon". In the two scenes you've offered up as evidence that Nolan has NO idea what he's doing, you've compiled a wonderful argument against the basic filmmaking elements that fail "The Dark Knight".

This blog is like a great film class where you can come and explicate scenes shot by shot and discuss their importance (thinking back to last year and the "No Country" posts) or why they simply don't work (this year with "The Dark Knight".) Even though I think I'll always say I liked "TDK", I know now after recently watching the film a third time and then coming here and seeing this, that I won't be so enthusiastic about it.

Curious though Jim if you could put the 'truck' scene up here and give it the treatment. I've heard you and others complain about that scene, but I found it to be one of the better executed scenes of the movie -- of course I may have just been fooled by Nolan's magic tricks and would love to look at it a frame at a time.

Oh, and more thing: do you think the film would have been better directed by someone like Alex Proyos ("Dark City")? Just wondering who you think could have handled the action scenes better.

Great stuff, Jim.

I should preface: I don't mean these questions in any way other than sincerely. Although I think I differ in opinion with you on The Dark Knight, I am following your ongoing discussion in order to understand why it is you're so harsh on it. (feel free to edit the preface out, if you like)

I'm not entirely sure what the criticism of this sequence is. I understand the curiosity about the cutaways to the unsuspecting cab driver (who is evidently deaf, not hearing the screaming woman - or he simply doesn't care... no matter). But the rest of it seemed perfectly fine to me. It is my intent to understand where you (or the original presenter of this video if it wasn't you) take issue with the sequence.

In the accompanying paragraph, I find the following quotes: "best parts of this sequence" and "the shot of the actual impact is too close to the same angle of the falling shot."

My questions are how are the parts best? Too close for what?

The effect for me (if I'm pressed to think about it) is one of induced panic and tension. Perhaps this is an inaccurate way to describe it, but the cutaways draw out the length of the peril (though not to the point of exhaustion) and keep me wondering for fractions of a second more whether and how they'd make it out of there.
I can offer no real defense for the cab driver, perhaps we were supposed to worry about his safety, too, but, as you said, there's no payoff. Or perhaps it was an effort at contrast - he's sipping his coffee calmly while panic plummets toward him - but I would agree that it's unnecessary at best and interrupts the momentum at worst.

Sorry about the length, but I'm interested in what your response to this would be.

JE: I think your reasoning is quite valid, and is probably the same as the filmmakers'. As I said, I found the sequence to be unnecessarily padded with the shots I mentioned. (To demonstrate, I took out almost half the shots -- and stuck an interrupted shot back together.) I think it's fascinating to see the different ways directors approach similar challenges (as in the examples in the first half here). Just trying to point out some alternatives. To return to the old Godard saw: sometimes the best way to criticize a movie is to make another movie. The web gives us the opportunity to actually show different ways of looking at a movie...

I like the momentum of the first part of the sequence (not included here) -- especially the way Batman dives out the window. By "too close," I mean there's not enough contrast between the two shots -- possibly because it's intended as a match cut that doesn't match, I don't know.

I'm not sure why people have such a hard time coming to grips with the fact that Nolan just isn't that strong of an action director. The first time I saw TDK I felt confused during action sequences at least a half dozen times. I still have no idea what is happening in the Scarecrow scene. Now, I'm not an expert so I wasn't immediately sure exactly what was bothering me, but I did know that I never ever had those disorientating feelings watching a Spielberg film. Heck, even The Departed managed to cash in on all its action sequences. It may not have been Infernal Affairs, but at least you were never confused.

And finally, regarding the theme of moral enigmas in TDK; if that ferry boat sequence was in Speed 2, exactly as it appeared in TDK, it would have been laughed at and universally mocked. Talk about Morality for Dummies (with all due respect).

I've known this for some time, but this clenches it for me: I've got to get around to seeing Buster Keaton's films.

When you mentioned Alfred Hitchcock and falling, I thought of the fall in Rear Window or perhaps that fall from the Statue of Liberty. Those weird constant-velocity falls that throw you out of the moment.

JE: To me, they're just part of the texture of the films, but they do belong, technologically, to another era.

Another example you might also have used the falling scene from Collateral (the dead guy on the cab), which the TDK scene somewhat resembles (another Michael Mann reference, perhaps?).

The only problem with taking out the cab driver shots is, there's no impact shot. Possibly Nolan shot other angles of this, but I don't really have a problem with the sequence except I would probably cut the frames of their landing on the cab and stay inside a little longer. Think of it: the cabbie's sitting there drinking coffee, then all of a sudden--BAM--and the cabbie splashes coffee all over the dash. Cut to the close up of Rachel and Batman, still alive. Then back to a wideshot of them on the cab.

JE: "Collateral" -- THAT's the scene I was trying to remember and couldn't! I wish I had!

Marrrk said:
"And finally, regarding the theme of moral enigmas in TDK; if that ferry boat sequence was in Speed 2, exactly as it appeared in TDK, it would have been laughed at and universally mocked. Talk about Morality for Dummies (with all due respect)."

Can you please elaborate as to why it would be mocked? And why it's 'Morality for Dummies'?

I'd be interested in seeing these scenes alongside that of a frozen Iron Man falling from the sky.

JE: That's a good one, too!

Jim, though I loved TDK, I have to say your version of the fall definitely is stronger. A lot of scenes do feel confusingly or awkwardly staged (Dent's face catching on fire springs to mind). Though I have enjoyed all of his films, I find him a frustrating director to watch at times. I feel like I've either seen too much or too little; there's almost an anti-climactic feeling to certain scenes in Batman Begins, The Prestige and TDK.

I've realized three things from reading your never ending entries about TDK's flawed shots/sequences. Not to quip about your quipping, but I think...

1. You're sincere with your dislike of the overall quality of the movie, but you're uneasy with that. This goes beyond putting htings for people to talk about, since you actually spend a lot of time in exposing the work to an overdose of deconstruction/analysis/comparison to other works. This is something taht you can't be calmed about, and you're probably seeking one of two things, IMO: 1. To get people to realize how technically subpar the film really is. 2. To get people to provide you with opinions and the brainstorm you need for understanding your own disliking on the movie. Whatever the case, it's really sad to see you do either intention with the deconstruction of such little and inconsequential shots.

2. You tend to adventure yourself into the avenues of amnesia that seems so hypocritical to your detractors and so natural to your supporters. This is the third time I've read comments from you about the supposed "lack of arguments/comments" from TDK supporters. You have to admitd that ain't true. I have witnessed here some of the most eloquent and EXTENSIVE pieces talking about the successes that The Dark Knight found among its fans. To imply (or blatantly tell) they haven't told you these things is hypocritical or absent-minded.

3. You often rightfully drive into displeasure from readers, who later critic your nitpicking. It's nice to read these pieces, since they're not so abundant, but after a while one tends to think you're taking your readership for fools. To label a shot or sequence as poorly constructed is not a general measure of of its director, by any standards. I can provide you with dozen of highly improvable shots from Scorsese, or Hitchcock, or even Welles. None of them are evidence enough to label them as aficionados. Anybody can cherrypick. Yuo're judging the scene not from what it added to the movie, but for it's individual merits. First of all, the editing was supposed to be confusing and sloppy, because that was Batman's experience of that momente... he was caught off-guard, his loved one was falling down, so he was supposed to be nervous, the situation was set-up by the Joker with his signature chatic nature... bottom line: Batman was not in charge of the situation. No one was. He and Rachel were falling down to a certain death, and he was doing what he could. It was supposed to be sloppy and disorienting. And second, if that fall was evidence of Nolan's skills, then you should look into his other falls in the movie... what about Maroni's "interrogation" fall? Or Dent's fall to death,followed by Batman's? Look at that last scene. Dent is looking up, waiting for the coin to fall, Batman enters the frame from the side, being only a black blurry shadow, interrumping everything, taking Dent by surprise... Barbara screams, Gordon gets up anxiously and nervous... the coin falls (clean side up) and we see an overshoulder of one of the film's most beautifuly composed shot... Batman hanging with all his strength, Dent lying in the ground several feet below, and the black cape and shoulder reveal the tightly embraced Jimmy, Gordon's son. Batman does what he can to deliver him to his father, and whe the boy's up Bats finger's give up and he falls... completely free fall, cape billowing, wood breaking his fall, in one shot. Gordon looks down again, and Batman lies with his face up, side by side with Dent. His fate seems sealed... the hero, in constrasting composition, lying next to the dead villain... both "deaths" tragic, one heroic, not the other.

If you see any technicalities in those shots, let me know. For the moment, I have faith in you seeing the light instead of wasting your (not anybody else's, but yours) time in dissecting sequences with celarly intentional cuts.

I've seen the Dark Knight once, but have followed your writings on it here closely. I thought it was ok the first time--but not the movie event of the year. I definitely found it incomprehensible at times.

On the current issue: I was a big fan of your choice of clips to include. In Bruges, Vertigo, Infernal Affairs (which ruined the Departed for me), and the Tenant all gave me a viceral feel for the height, the pull of gravity, and the fall. I couldn't have explained why in the theater, but I know the way I felt.

In every "fall" scene in the Dark Knight I get a feeling that the laws of gravity do not apply to Batman. There is no sense of danger, excitement, etc. associated with being up high and falling.

Your cut was much better (in my opinion). I think TDK had too many MTV type of shots that took away from the sheer quickness and excitement of a falling object. If a filmmaker cuts up a fall too much, he loses the innate excitement that a very simple shot of a falling person/object can give.

Anyway, keep up the good work here. I'm going to see the Dark Knight again at some point and I'll have a different eye the second time around.

I do not think the changed cut of the fall from The Dark Knight was better, at all. Sure, it's a different way to go about it, but the way I felt when I watched that seen was a sense of utter urgency. In the re-cut scene that you presented, none of that urgency existed. There was nothing at stake. It was just a fall, plain and simple.

As others have noted, context is a very important piece of the entire argument: what happens directly leading up to that fall? The Joker just drops Rachel out the window. Predictable or not, it cut away from what the viewer was at that point focused on, which was a confrontation between Batman and the Joker. That focus changes immediately to, as I explained before, a sense of urgency, and a slight sense of panic as to the fate of both characters.

The sudden cuts in the scene add to the sense of panic involved. The cut to the cab driver increased the urgency, as it placed yet another life in the balance. An unknown life (to the viewer), yes. But it raises the stakes.

I doubt you agree with the assessment, but as a viewer, I think that if I feel adrenaline from an action-oriented falling scene, I'm satisfied. And shouldn't that be the goal? To satisfy the viewer?

JE: Very well put. Thanks, Nathan. Personally, I was dissatisfied. I think your assessment of the reasons for the directorial and editorial decisions made are probably right on the money. They didn't work for me -- dulling the action rather than intensifying it -- and the second part of this essay was an attempt to see if I could figure out, for myself, why I felt that way.

The Collateral scene breaks down like this: Max (Jamie Fox) eating a sandwich, Max looking at a Mercedes catalog. Then, all of a sudden, POV shot moving down towards the cab's roof, a wideshot behind the cab in 3/4 profile as the body begins to impact the cab; another wide shot (this time of the cab in full profile) of the body continuing its impact; a POV (Max's) shot of the dead guy's head smashing into the cab's windshield; a wideshot of Max freaking out in the cab (his sandwich goes flying every which way); another POV of the dead guy's head on the windshield; a close up of Max (quickly) getting (falling) out of the cab, which is match cut with a wider shot of him stumbling backwards on to the pavement. The whole scene takes about ten seconds.

What makes it work are the impact shots, which are timed just right. They have a sort of rythm--a brisk 1, 2, 3. The impact in the Dark Knight isn't as precise. It goes 1..2. And is not as effective as a result.

This is a fascinating post, Jim, for a lot of reasons -- first and foremost because it dares reply to that moldy, conversation-ending taunt so beloved of those who disagree with a critic's pan of a movie they love: "I'd like to see you do better."

I personally think the fall as re-cut by Jim Emerson is better than the original. It's cleaner, punchier, more involving, certainly more direct. It's Hemingway as opposed to Stephen King, if you know what I mean -- shorter sentences, fewer adjectives; it's more detached, clinical even.

That said, if you like King better than Hemingway, regardless of anybody's opinion of their technical skills, Nolan's version is just right.

And as some of your other commenters have asserted, it's not fair to judge the clip in isolation from what came before and after in the storyline, or apart from the film as a whole, because it's all of a piece.

These sorts of arguments often come back to aesthetic preference and personal temperament, and there are so many ways to frame the issue that you can get lightheaded trying to list them all.

Really, there's nothing objectively wrong with the fall as presented in the film; it's acceptable by current standards of commercial filmmaking. I think the comparison of the "Dark Knight" fall and other falls in the video essay (particularly the ones culled from Hitchcock, Polanski and Buster Keaton) point up the essential shallowness of Nolan's approach to the simple task of photographing a fall from a great height. But it all depends on what you want from a movie, specifically a movie of this type (broad brushstroke comic-book adventure), and what you would classify as good or great (or merely competent) filmmaking, and the weight you as a viewer assign to visual originality as opposed to, say, crisp performances or clearly delineated moral positions.

David Bordwell did a great post along somewhat similar lines recently -- or maybe it was just a parenthetical within an article about something else; maybe a Bordwell fan can jog my memory and supply a URL -- in which he complained that commercial filmmaking norms often erred on the side of "energy," and the execution often seemed rote, the camera movement and cuts fundamentally dissociated from what was happening in the scene. Examples include using a lot of short, wild shots in an action sequence when a few judiciously-framed medium-length shots would have done the job just as well, or covering a simple conversation with a camera endlessly circling the participants at vertigo-inducing speed to make the talk seem more "dynamic." Michael Bay is the king of mindlessly "dynamic" direction; his favorite transition is a hard cut accompanied by a deafening "BOOM!" on the soundtrack, an affectation that's either a lame attempt to get your heart pounding and make you think you're excited, or insurance against the possibility of anybody in the theater dozing off. This sort of thing is the movie version of a writer overusing italics for emphasis and ending every other sentence with an exclamation point.

As usual, I digress.

More than any specific clip or assertion in the piece, I appreciate that you ended by posing questions to the viewer. This decision tells me that you're not just saying "The film's no masterpiece; I'm right about this and everyone who says otherwise is wrong" -- though that's absolutely the subtext, maybe even the impetus for this anti-"Dark Knight" crusade. You seem genuinely curious about why you feel as you do, you're cognizant of the fact that you haven't completely thought through and justified your certitude, and you're willing (even eager) to put yourself in a position where you have to justify yourself and fill in those gaps in your reasoning.

Is this criticism? Maybe, maybe not -- I tend to think not. That's not a rap. It's a compliment. What you're here doing feels more like a combination of teaching and learning; you're making yourself the mentor and the pupil all at once.

I love it.

JE: Thanks, Matt. It's always a chicken-egg thing with me, and I couldn't do it (or wouldn't bother) if the process of trying to communicate the way I see something weren't as much about discovering things for myself as anything else. (Much as I love Hitchcock, I could never make movies the way he describes making them, where they're all finished in your head before you start shooting.)

You perfectly capture the central issue with your comparison of writers. There is no "objectivity" when it comes to style. But how do you talk about "style"? You can point to the construction of Hemingway's sentences, talk about how they convey his way of looking at the world. And, beyond that, you can offer an evaluation (or an assertion of personal taste) -- what you think it does, whether it works for you, whether you feel it's a valid/appropriate approach....

The critic's dilemma is always how to describe an entire work (perhaps hundreds of pages, hundreds of images, hundreds of minutes) in a few paragraphs. You can give a few examples and extrapolate. You can make generalizations. You can try to pinpoint where the film went "wrong," and even make suggestions about other approaches you believe would have been preferable. But rarely, until now, has there been a way to try to actually SHOW it. That's what I was trying to do with this: show a variety of ways filmmakers have approached a similar sequences (in strikingly different styles), and then try to examine why this particular one didn't work for me and how it could have been done differently.

The (probably) unanswerable questions will always be: Are you trying to retroactively justify a feeling or opinion, or get at the root cause(s)? Is there a way to know for sure? I don't know. All I know is that I have fun, apply knowledge and instincts I already have, and learn new things from doing it.

I'd agree with earlier comments that the taxi driver either needed a punchline or excision, but I otherwise like the scene as is, and I don't find this recut an improvement.

Your cut emphasizes the fall itself - the logic of them falling down the roof, twirling, and landing. But Nolan's cut splices in closeups of (a) faces, (b) hands grasping, and (c) hands clasping. While this ups the ASL, it also redirects the viewers' focus to the people involved; specifically, Bat's effort to catch her.

Yours makes a little more sense from a spatial standpoint, but the excitement generated by witnessing the struggle on a closer scale generates a more personal connection to what's happening.

Jim,

The portion from TDK is incomprehensible. Too many cuts; too dark; just confusing. Every fight scene in the movie has the same problem. It is impossible to follow what is happening and thus to even care.

Compare to the following:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXIGP6_fNZk

Eric

"That said, if you like King better than Hemingway, regardless of anybody's opinion of their technical skills, Nolan's version is just right."

Thank you Matt. That sums it up perfectly.

I liked In Bruges a lot, but it did not have the same level of emotional impact on me as The Dark Knight. I'm not technically qualified to argue that The Dark Knight was better shot or put together than In Bruges. If you say it wasn't with convincing evidence, I'll concede the point. However, the climax of In Bruges was just a bit too pat. I don't want to give spoilers, but frankly the final, key decision, was either totally unconvincing, or if we are to accept it, reduces that character to a satire of himself. It was going for Shakespearian, but it was too comedic, in spite of its darkness.

Whereas to me The Dark Knight was far more emotionally involving in that it was an endictment of cynicism, which seemed a particularly appropriate theme in 2008. It also demonstrated a theme of human social evolution, progress, that I personally believe in and argue in favour of with my friends and colleagues. The idea that not only human individuals generally improve, grow, become better people, throughout their lifetimes, but also that human societies grow, improve, become more enlightened over history is an important and powerful theme.

Roger Ebert always says that it's not what a film is about, but HOW it is about it that is important. From a reviewer or critics perspective, I think that's a critical insight. From the perspective of just one guy that likes to watch movies, to me what a film is about is every bit as important as how it is about it, and that, I think, is where you're seeing a lot of the love for The Dark Knight.

This is not on the topic of the merits of Jim's criticisms of TDK, but more just a side note on the topic of falls. Watching your clips, Jim, reminded me of Die Hard (1988). There were two falls in that film that struck me. First was in the earlier part where McClane's character throws one of the henchmen out the window onto the police car. I just recall that sequence seeming very realistic toward the end of the shot when (I think) the POV was from the car. Keep in mind that this is now a 15-year old or more memory, so I don't know if the shot actually has any technical/editing deficiencies. I especially the reaction of the police officer in that scence. Second, however, was the horribly fake-looking scene at the end when Hans falls. Perhaps nowadays that might look better with technical improvements.

Great work here Jim. Very convincing. Your edit is an improvement. Certainly Nolan has final oversight of this, but maybe some of this is due to poor editing?

I forgot to add something to my last post. I wish you had included the other major falling scene in TDK. I think it would be interesting to compare the way that one was filmed, and see if it was filmed comparitively well or not.

Nic: Regarding, In Bruges, are you talking about Ralph Fiennes' decision? This, to me, is the point of the film. Absolutism is pointless.

Regarding falls, I just watched There Will Be Blood, and in the opening scenes, Daniel falls down the mine in two shots. Shot 1 shows perspective, from above, as he climbs down the ladder. Shot 2, from below, shows the fall, as he comes toward us. Then we cut to black for a moment. There is no landing. We hear the landing, and we hear his gasp for life afterward, but we don't see it. I would suggest this represents Daniel's continuing fall throughout the film--i.e. he doesn't land because he's still falling--but he didn't strike me as particularly virtuous to begin with.

Where's Jackie Chan?

I enjoyed The Dark Knight mainly for Heath Ledger's performance, and for the unevenly successful attempt at moral complexity, but as an action film, it's garbage. As an obsessive action fan, it really frustrated me that there wasn't a single punch, kick or car accident that I could get a clear picture of in my head.

On the one hand, it makes sense that if Batman beat you up you wouldn't know WHAT the hell just happened, but what about the choppy-cutty action scenes where Batman ISN'T beating anyone up? After you've seen a good action scene, you should be able to draw completely accurate blueprints of the set it took place on.

Nolan's fall is far better than the Emerson-edited fall. Jim, my problem with your editing of the fall is that it takes out all the excitement. With the close-ups Nolan was showing how Batman was struggling to grab Rachel and save her. There's suspense and tension. It isn't just a simple fall.

Your sequence is essentially just a simple fall. Batman and Rachel slide off the roof and we see them crash into a car below. There's no excitment. They are just falling. It doesn't show Batman struggling to grab onto Rachel and save her, which was what that whole fall was about. Furthermore, as you only use wide shots, there's no emotion. We can't see the fear Rachel is experiencing. There's no suspense. As well, by the way you edited it, it seems as if the two of them have been killed. Logically, anyone would be killed in the situation, but showing the cab driver sets up that they are going to make a safe landing.

In the end, I think the only way I would dislike The Dark Knight as much as you do would be if you edited it.

JE: "Your sequence is essentially just a simple fall." That's true. The only option in this exercise was to subtract from what was already there.

Jim,

As no one else has mentioned it, it would seem no one else has a problem with it, but I have to say I take issue with your "re-editing" of the scene from "The Dark Knight".

It's one thing to critique the way something was done and describe what did or didn't work for you, or even comparing and contrasting as you did in the first half of your video; but presenting your own, "better" version of a scene by re-editing it?

Should I expect, in the next book review I read, the critic to insert a lengthy passage from the reviewed book, but rewritten so as to be more "effective" (read: better) as the critic sees it? Perhaps my local music critic can electronically pull apart an album he felt was a misstep, and remix it, thereby showing how much "better" it could have been?

Your intent may be the same, but what's the difference between what you did with this scene, and "The Phantom Edit", in which a disgruntled fan took "The Phantom Menace" and cut out everything he didn't like (mostly Jar Jar Binks, as I understand it), thereby making a "better" movie.

Where does criticism end and childishness begin?

JE: Matt, I can see how you might interpret it as "childish," but it's not what I set out to do. The "remix" comparison is more like it: Remixes and mashups are, implicitly, legitimate forms of alternative criticism -- taking a track or a scene in one direction or another. In this case, that was the idea of providing the examples in Part I. (I started working on a version where I cut together shots from different movies to make one "fall," but I didn't think it worked.) But I explicitly set this up as an attempt at movie criticism. So, here's the way I look at it, from a reply I made to an earlier comment:

http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2009/01/the_architecture_of_gravity.html#comment-610748

There is no "objectivity" when it comes to style. But how do you talk about "style"? [...] The critic's dilemma is always how to describe an entire work (perhaps hundreds of pages, hundreds of images, hundreds of minutes) in a few paragraphs. You can give a few examples and extrapolate. You can make generalizations. You can try to pinpoint where the film went "wrong," and even make suggestions about other approaches you believe would have been preferable. But rarely, until now, has there been a way to try to actually SHOW it. That's what I was trying to do with this: show a variety of ways filmmakers have approached a similar sequences (in strikingly different styles), and then try to examine why this particular one didn't work for me and how it might have been done differently.

I'd compare it to a paragraph like this, from Manohla Dargis's review of "Crips and Bloods" in today's NY Times:

Part of the problem lies in his decision to chop up the time line and jump from the present to the past and forward again, a strategy that, like the frantic editing, dilutes the historical momentum he is trying to build. There is something too jarring about his leap from the cotton fields to gangland.

The difference, of course, is that it's a close look at one particular sequence. I could have stopped at the "what didn't work for me" part, but I thought I'd actually provide an alternative way of looking at it. Hence the "no end (of possibilities)" title at the end.

Please excuse any grammatical issues in my first post; I somehow managed to submit the message before I was done proofreading.

Your cut is stronger, but that's in the case of the fall itself. The fall isn't about the fall, but about the characters, ergo the cuts to Maggie's expressions. I think the cabby shot is for the funny the movie feels the need to deploy every now and then.

I can't comment too much as I don't really get the purpose of Batman landing the way he did. Nolan isn't one to do stuff just for the hell of it, there must be a reason for the way he landed.

JE: If you look at the shots of Batman in the dialog sequence at the end, Rachel and Batman appear to be lying on the pavement or the sidewalk, not on top of the cab. There may be a piece missing, just after the landing.

Sorry, but the original version is much stronger. The idea behind the close-ups and cutaway to the cab driver is to build suspense, both by showing Rachel's reactions and by stretching out time to prolong the sequence. The difference between the Dark Knight scene and all of the other clips in your video is that the fate of Batman and Rachel is kept in suspense. It's all about "how are they going to get out of it?", a question we could not ask if it's over and done with too quickly. The other clips you showed all depicted people either jumping or falling to their deaths, or jumping or falling onto (or into) something to break their fall, and "how are they going to get out of it?" does not factor into any of them. The intent is completely different than that of the DK clip.

I'd taken a while to get around to this post, because I didn't want to spoil "In Bruges". But I took a look at it last night, and so now I can offer my basic thoughts.

It's been mentioned before, but Nolan's jump sequence is indicative of the way action is being presented in most movies today. The main issue that I have with this new padded, swish, pan, "boom" style is that it disorients the viewer in terms of geographical placement. We know that Batman and Rachel are falling, and for a couple of seconds we even have an idea of where they are at in their fall, but that quickly dissipates as Nolan slips in little shots of close up black objects and swishing sounds. We are reoriented when they hit the cab. The sequence has plenty of kinetic energy, and enough movement and sound that the viewer is generally distracted from asking questions about geography. This basically sums up the Bourne movies and the new James Bond.

I really began to notice this when I started going back to look at 80's action films I'd missed as a kid, because my parents wouldn't let me see em'. In movies like "Predator" and "Robocop" we are almost always aware of where each character is in the action, and how far (or close) they are to the other characters involved. The camera is often willing to linger on a characters face or movements. With a fall, time sort negates the possibility of lingering on the actual action, but I think the clip from 'The Tenant" shows best the basic discrepancy in styles. Polanski is willing to settle on the roof for a bit, possibly imitating the characters POV (it's been some time since I've seen "The Tenant", and I'm sorry to say that it might be a long time before I return to it). It's rare to see a fall in two shots quite like that today.

All of that is to say that your edit is a better one as far as I'm concerned. It focuses us more directly on the characters, and on their visual/spacial relationship to the top of the building, the side of the building, and cab they land on.

Do you think we'll see this trend in action filmmaking go away, or are we stuck with it for life?

First Jim. Let me say I'm glad you finally got around to taking my advice and seeing the superior "Internal Affairs".

Second. I'll add further agreement that "In Bruges" is a superior film in a lot of ways to "TDK", and probably one of the best films os the year.

Thirdly. I'll say that it's unfortunate "Let the Right One In" is not getting space amongst all of these taking-aparts and deliberations of films and film making. It deserves at least 5 articles written about it.

Finally the editing: Is one way stronger. No. One is simply different than the other. Each tells a different story, doesn't it? Just as each film selected tells a different story, so must show it differently.

(I've done a lot of editing, and have saved a lot of films for people that didn't necessarily know how to make films.)

I'll start with your shorter edits of "TDK". The seven shot sequence. All told in medium shots. It's interesting, and effective. Ang Lee once said about car chases, you need close ups of the people in the cars, because people don't care about the cars per se (something like that, but the idea is intact). Your 7 shot edit shows two forms mingling abstractly in space as they drop. Again, effective if that's what you're going for.

Nolan's edit. Close up of the hand reaching and trying to grab. Close up of the face in absolute terror. There's a human element in the mix. One that allows us to see that this falling and grappling isn't as easy at it would look.

The cab driver I can give or take. He's a button. And they had to insert the button as part of the story (as visually this is a mini-story) earlier so that when they referenced him towards the end, he could elicit a chuckle without it feeling too tacked on. It's the biggest flaw I see in Nolan's film. The treatment of the city dwellers. They sometimes seem a little too comical for a movie that treats every thing else, including Batman, as human and flawed...and not perfect. I think the film echoes this element. (Okay, that last sentence was a joke to get under your skin Jim.)

I wish I had the time you have to put into stuff like this. Hopefully you'll be separating my movies apart someday in this manner. I would take it as a compliment, whether you liked the film or not!

JE: Well put, as always, Phillip. Perhaps I did take your advice about "Infernal Affairs" -- but if so it was before "The Departed" was released! I saw it first, which was one reason I was disenchanted with Scorsese's movie.

The problem, I think, with the cab driver "button" is that it's not pushed. It's a set-up with no pay-off. All the guy does is flinch when they land and his side window cracks up. I swear there's something missing that was originally envisioned for this sequence. And I hope someday to see your movies, too!

Jim,

First, I have to qualify my use of the word "childishness". I intended it to reference the author of "The Phantom Edit", and not yourself, but my wording should have been much better. My apologies.

I'm not sure I go along with your "remix" analogy, though. As I see it, a remix is a re-purposing of a composition; taking a regular pop song one would hear on the radio and making it fit better in a dance club setting, or a DJ's playlist. I think, though that the people doing remixes are remixing songs they like, not songs they have issues with. I've never thought of that as a critique, or as making any other statement than "I like this song."

I guess I'm questioning your intent, because I think you are presenting your remix as a superior version; not just a different one. I think it becomes more "Look at Me!" rather than "Look at this!"

In any case, here are my thoughts on Nolan's original scene. I think it is effective in portraying what it might be like once you were thrown out of a building; in a panic, cartwheeling through space at terminal velocity as the wind whips past, pulling at your clothing. Rachel's falling to her death, and Batman's trying to save her, making it up as he goes along, just reacting to the moment. It's very different from the scene in Hong Kong where Batman fully intends to jump off the building, and drops quite serenely, activating his glider wing almost as an afterthought. I think the editing in both works in the context of the story.

I will say, though, I am still unsure as to how Batman slowed his and Rachel's descent to make the fall painful, and not fatal; with his glider wing, or his grapnel? This was definitely unclear.

JE: Matt, that was unclear to me, too, but (as I said from the start) I think the fluttering on the soundtrack does a lot of effective work in suggesting what's happening. I think your instincts about the sequence in the movie are good. This was an instance where I found it helpful to look up the script (posted for awards consideration at the official site), to see if there were any clues about the intent at some stage. The script, of course, is NOT the final interpretation of the film -- only an indication of what may have been planned when the movie was being shot. (I'd never consult a script BEFORE I saw the movie, because that encourages misreading of the movie itself.) Anyway, for what it's worth, here's what the official site says was in the screenplay, which is noticeably different from the finished version:

EXT. BUILDING -- NIGHT

They DROP- Batman FIRES his grapple, SNAGGING Rachel's ankleactivates one wing of his cape- They SPIN and SLOW- Batman envelopes Rachel- they SLAM into the hood of a passing taxi.

INT. TAXI -- CONTINUOUS

The DRIVER SCREAMS as Batman and Rachel hit the roof- ROLL down the windshield- onto the pavement. Alive.

Perhaps that partially explains what was happening during the fall (it would seem there was no malfunction, but a deliberate attempt by Batman to slow their fall -- good thing, too!), why the cab driver is there (although his taxi is not in motion), and why Rachel and Batman are indeed on the pavement in the dialog sequence that immediately follows.

I'm sure some remixes and mash-ups are tributes, and some are mockeries. I carefully avoided using the word "better" in providing my alternative "mix." (I asked: stronger? ... or not?" -- since my aim was to encourage discussion of the mechanics of the sequence.) All I could do was shorten it (not add any footage) to illustrate my point about what I think (for reasons stated) wasn't effective in the finished version.

Very kind of you Jim, thank you!

If you go back you'll see a lot of Hong Kong cinema I recommended. Johnnie To is one of the best action/drama/comedy directors over there. "The Mission", "Breaking News". Andy Lau has several good movies as well, all worth checking out. I also saw it before "The Departed" and was kinda let down by Scorcese's somewhat over populated film. The Wahlberg character being extremely useless.

There is definitely something missing from the "button". The car hardly looks like it's dented from the inside. It seems unnecessary in this version, because the actual "button" is the line of dialogue, "Let's not do that again." Whatever it is.
It's tough to make a "better" sequence out of someone else's footage! You did a fine job.

Has anyone on any of these posts mentioned how boring Maggie Gylenhaal is in this film. I feel like it's the white elephant in the room. She was definitely the weakest link of the problems contained in the film itself. You understand the reason for the casting, but she seems to approach the character with a little too much irony, while everyone else is 100% committed to the reality of the situations. I almost wanted Katie Holmes back.

Although I liked Jim's version better overall, the commenters mentioning the human element introduced by the cuts to Batman trying to catch hold of Rachel also have a point. I think the cutaways would have increased my valuation of Nolan's original if and only if they were longer than a couple of frames. If we had enough spatial cues to figure out what (and where) the closeups were about, then I would be fine with them. As it is, it's too close, too dark, too fast, and smacks of editing for editing's sake, as discussed in the Bordwell post that Matt Zoller Seitz mentions. And I still think the non-matched cut near the end is a complete flub.

@Matt, perfect example with Hemingway and King. Hemingway's sparse style is exactly what I love about him, which may in fact be the same tendency that's guiding me in this debate.

Jim, in a comment response, you mention the fact that your recut could only take out the cutaways, since you could only work with existing footage. If you had all of Nolan's footage to work with, would you have included differently cut and paced cutaway closeups, or would you still have edited it with only the long shots?

JE: I think it deserves to be longer than what I was able to do with it, but I was just trying to illustrate what happens if you remove all the cutaways. Depending on how much the director shoots and prepares, there may be many, many options available in the cutting room. Not only shots from various angles and "coverage" (masters, medium shots, full shots, close-ups from different perspectives), but different takes of the same set-ups. SO many possibilities. A sequence like this could be compressed into a few seconds or stretched into a minute, or several. De Palma might do a whole slow-mo balletic set-piece with it, for example. So, there's no telling. It all depends on what you decide to shoot and how/if you decide to use it later on...

It does definitely need to be longer Jim, especially the two shot where it looks like they fell off a first story balcony. Ho! Ho!

I'd love to see John Woo edit this sequence. Doves flying by as they gracefully fall towards earth. Or the Wachowski Brothers...camera circling them as they fall in one take towards the ground.

That would be a nifty thing. Take the most random scene and do it as several different directors might.

Did you ever see Scorcese's short film. Three pages from an unfinished Hitchcock film, shot just like Hitchcock would have done it. Really cool stuff.

Oddly enough, the problem I had with this scene, and with many other in the movie, is that it gives us to little.

I liked your version, Jim, as an example of a realistic fall. It was quick, it was forceful, it was stomach churning. But, it was totally unsurvivable.

Nolan gives us shots of Bat grasping for Rachel, trying to save her. We see that he is attempting to do something to ensure she survives... then smash! Still totally unsurvivable. Next shot: he rolls off her as if we're cutting to some post-coital pillow talk.

I wanted something (I don't know what, exactly) to indicate how they survived. I think the logic in the movie is that Bat's cape slowed them down some. This is not obvious, though, and I think it is poor story telling to not make it more clear. I enjoy it when movies make the audience work a little to keep up, but I felt TDK was reckless in the way it left out details, leaving the audience just dumbfounded as to what just happened.

Another example is the Joker's escape from the interogation room. Here, we are given the clues needed to piece things together (a shard of glass on the sill next to Joker in a close up), but the movie just skips over the part of the Joker getting the upper hand and the effect is disorienting. Puzzle solving in movies is fun when it serves the story (as when it is a puzzle for the characters as well), but here it just strikes me as laziness.

My one other issue, and maybe it's just me, but I found the two times I saw it that it was extremely difficult to understand the dialog, particularly in the first half of the movie. Half the words sound slurred or spoken under their breath, and the volume of the ambient noises nearly drowns the dialog out. What are your thoughts on the sound editing of this film?

Despite these flaws, I felt the movie still worked. I think Nolan is very good at setting and maintaining a certain tone in his pictures that allow you to draw in and be immersed in the world of the movie. I also think the thematic elements of the story raise TDK well above the standard Hollywood fare. Overall, I like it.

What bothered me more than the confusion of the fall was a moment that immediately preceded it. In one of the TV spots for the movie, the Joker does this wonderful, maniacal laugh at the moment he drops Rachel from the window. I was looking forward to seeing this scene in full, as that laughter was just the perfect, crazed punctuation that the moment deserved. But, instead, what we get is a loud, forceful musical cue that almost entirely drowns out the Joker's laugh. It just seemed so unnecessary when the laughter alone was so utterly right. I guess that might be nitpicking, but the more I think about TDK, the more flawed it seems. (Though I still hold it in high regard.) Compare (laugh at about 0:07): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4BjTDvJ6wQ

The video doesn't show up for me; it's just a blank space. Is this another one of your videos that vanished with iKlipz? Any chance of it being rescued and reposted? I'm curious to see it.