The framing of the Dark Knight

You might find this interesting:

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

It's a recording from someone's window of the filming of the bus escape scene.

Not for nothing, this is a film that needs to be seen in IMAX to be believed. It's an entirely different experience. I've seen it in IMAX twice, in 35 once, and on blu-ray, and all three are different experiences. I'm not a scientist, but I had the distinct feeling that even the blu-ray version cropped part of the frame from the original IMAX.

I've long heard those who study film insist that films should be seen on the medium they are shot on, but this movie was the first where I fully comprehended why. Not even for reasons of aspect ratio, but the utter clarity, not to mention the sheer awesome size of it - all of these create a wholly different impact. Jim, I highly recommend you see it in IMAX when it is re-released later this month, despite your feelings about the film. It's exciting to see this sort of movie shot on that sort of film.

(The above point will be made even more clear, I suspect, when Avatar is released - but we'll cross that bridge in due time.)

Jim--

Come on--"You have an eye for the camera's optimal movement and location or you don't"? Who the heck defines what's "optimal"? We're talking about stylistic choices here. What is less than optimal about the shot of the buses? The composition is balanced, but the camera's position relative to the road is skewed enough to be interesting without being at a distracting angle for no reason. There's movement, and it's easy to interpret what's just happened. How is it a sign of lacking visual sense other than some vague feeling you have that it could've been better somehow?

JE: Absolutely. There are always a range of choices when it comes to setting up, beginning and ending a shot. You can tell when you're in the hands of someone you can trust, and you can tell when you're in the hands of somebody who doesn't quite know what he/she is doing. If it feels unsatisfying, the first thing you do is look for why you might be feeling that way. Is it a choice of shots, a line reading, an actor's gesture or intonation? A million choices a minute -- that's all that makes the difference between a satisfying movie and an unsatisfying or mediocre one.

Interesting—so with the Blu-ray, we now have the iMax material released in three different aspect ratios. I don't necessarily shoot

It's hard to tell looking at lo-res YouTube video, but the bank looks like it was added on to the building for the shoot. It's possible that while filming, Nolan and/or crew determined that the way it protruded into the intersection was awkward, or that the facade wasn't convincing—they were, after all, shooting in iMax, so details would be quite apparent. So maybe they took that shot as backup, and indeed, the original shot didn't work. If that shot had always been the plan, one would hope that Mr. Nolan wouldn't have put the production through the strain of building the bank exterior for nothing. Big-budget projects still need to control costs.

Please note that I'm not trying to excuse the shot (although I don't think it's a terrible shot in the context of the sequence) so much as point out that the crappy YouTube video doesn't really capture what kind of conditions they were shooting under.

It's also possible that Nolan specifically didn't want to show the bank because he wanted the bus to vanish into a normal city scene (in which case he shouldn't have shown the cop cars.)

Me? I would have staged it thus: The bus in a hole in the bank around the corner, pulls out of the building, then turns the into the line of busses. The camera drifts from right to left as this occurs, taking the bank out of the scene, but maintaining the same distance. We hear approaching sirens, but don't see the cars.

However, last time I checked, I didn't direct "The Dark Knight."

JE: I'm beginning to wonder if anybody directed "The Dark Knight," since the way people are talking about it here their opinions supersede anything that someone else might see in the movie itself (if such a thing exists independent of their opinion of it). For what it's worth, I think you have good instincts.

Jim--
But nothing you just said reflects any objective standard. You're just telling me how it feels to you. If 10% of viewers and critics agree with you, that's interesting to note, but why are your feelings somehow closer to "true" than everyone else's? Should I view any use of queasy-cam as inevitably bad because it makes some people nauseous, even if it has no such effect on me?

JE: No, but talk about it. The shot begins at a certain point and ends at a certain point. It affected me this way. I've tried to honestly describe it. Perhaps you were not affected the same way. Describe what you experienced. That's what I'm always trying to get going here, an exchange of ideas based on what's actually in the movie. The more specific we can get about what's there, the better. We can still come away with different impressions. But let's try to figure out what those impressions are based upon. Some people talk about movies (to paraphrase Joe Gillis in "Sunset Boulevard," as if they just made them up as they went along. I'm not interested in doing that.

Man, you're posting so much on this movie that I can't even step away from the computer for a few hours to watch it without something new coming up on this site.

Anyway, I did watch it (on DVD), and I want to apologize for an earlier comment about the shot in question. I said that there were no police sirens. Well, there are. The volume on my computer must be screwy, because when I watched the movie on my projector tonight I felt a little embarrassed. I still think the shot cheats with the sound of school children. What hurts about that choice is that Nolan didn't need to include them. It would have been pretty easy to believe that the Joker had simply hired a little fleet of buses.

Looking over the movie again, I think that, generally, it works. Yes, it's drenched in exposition, and some of the action sequences (particularly the climax during the ferry situation) are totally incoherent. But the good seems to outweigh the bad, and the story itself works well for the first hour and a half.

I also think that one reason people may be responding so negatively to all this talk over one shot is exactly that it's just one shot. In the original post you did mention that it was minor, and I think that's why most are willing to let it go. In fact, I'm willing to let it go. I expect a certain quota of missed shots or opportunities in every movie. So, if i see one like the one you've mentioned, I'm prepared to let it pass. Some people also have a difficult time conceiving of a different movie than the one on the screen. They don't wonder what it might have been like it had been done this way or that way. Most aren't truly aware of the options a director might have. At least this is what I've begun to believe about many moviegoers though conversations. The real problems for me remains Nolan's insistence on feigned realism, and his willingness to allow nearly every character to become a mouthpiece for some convoluted philosophy about the nature of heroism.

One more thing. I'm not sure who thinks that the Joker has supernatural powers, but I do think they're looking at the wrong person. If anyone appears to have those powers, it's Bruce Wayne. He seems to know every needed detail at the precise moment of it's maximum usefulness. He's always exactly where he needs to be no matter how far away or close he may be to his needed destination. He may have some crazy technology, a few old men for assistants, and a boatload of cash, but still he is only one man. The Joker, on the other hand is, counter to his testimony, extremely organized (or at least we have to guess so, because we never see where he lives, or what company he keeps). Or wait, maybe we never see where he lives, because he's actually a spirit. At any rate, it seems obvious that Nolan intends his Joker as the personification of terrorism. Carefully laid out, and executed chaos. And maybe this is why Nolan shows him to us only through the eyes of others (mobsters, television viewers, Batman, Dent).

I digress.

Jim--
Well, I was commenting on what seemed to me to be a fairly dismissive quote from you, implying that people who weren't bothered by the shot (including Nolan himself) lacked the same judgment as the people who did, as if being offended by something is somehow the signifier of having an informed opinion on it. I have no problem with you talking about the shot and why it bothered you; what I disliked was the a priori presumption that those who had a different reaction lacked visual sense, absent an objective standard of "visual sense."

That said, I did describe how I felt about the shot to a degree above: "The composition is balanced, but the camera's position relative to the road is skewed enough to be interesting without being at a distracting angle for no reason. There's movement, and it's easy to interpret what's just happened." It begins with a tight shot of the wheels, which strikes me as a more interesting way to note the bus's movement than simply cutting straight to it moving, and then pulls out in a single shot to give you a long view that encapsulates all the information you need to interpret the scene: the bus driving away, the line of buses that it enters, the oncoming cop cars, ignorant of the getaway vehicle. And the angle that's looking nearly directly down the street allows two things: First, not only the information that there are more buses, but of how the Joker's bus now seemlessly fits in the line of buses. Second, you see the cop cars coming from a distance and watch them pass the bus, demonstrating just how close they came to the perpetrator, and letting you appreciate how well the Joker's planning has covered his escape. And it does this with one crane shot that allows the events to play out without cutting so the audience can savor this victorious moment.

JE: I'm so exhausted. This feels like working on a movie during production. Some shots do what is necessary, some skate by, some have to be fudged in order to make them work (or they have to be eliminated), some deliver more than you ever could have hoped for. Any movie is made up of combinations of these kinds of shots. Hours and days and professional crew talents and $$$$ go into preparing for a second or two of screen time in the finished film. There are times when nobody actually knows what those moments are until they see them in the context of the finished film.

"Every time I've seen it...I've felt "The Dark Knight" was riddled with off-putting, perplexing choices like this one."

Spot on! I think Nolan has a fairly decent visual sense, but certainly no discernable visual style to speak of. Even in IMAX, he doesn't give much of a sense of space or depth within his frame. Visually, he's extremely weak, and he almost always allows the spoken word to take center stage. A huge mistake, especially with such a shitburger script.

But I quoted that sentence of yours because it reminded me of something Mark Twain wrote, when discussing the "Fenimore Cooper's Literary Offenses", certainly the best piece of criticism I've ever read:

In addition to these large rules, there are some little ones. These require that the author shall:
12. Say what he is proposing to say, not merely come near it.
13. Use the right word, not its second cousin.
14. Eschew surplusage.
15. Not omit necessary details.
16. Avoid slovenliness of form.
17. Use good grammar.
18. Employ a simple and straightforward style.

Kinda reminds me of Nolan.

JE: Those are well-articulated standards that we can all strive for. Thanks, Ryan!

I don't know much about film production, but it seems to me that modern movies use much shorter shots in general than older movies, and I suspect they are less thoroughly storyboarded. I think better storyboarding might go a long way towards getting more coherency between shots.

But again, I don't know anything about the process.

Jim, you said, "...I still think it was a poor idea to start in so close on the bus in the first place. Clearly this is another reason why."

On the contrary; it's merely another reason to see films exhibited the way they were intended. Nolan was shooting an IMAX film with an IMAX camera for IMAX theaters. I have yet to see the film in IMAX (although I have on Blu-ray), but if I had paid to see it, I would have felt cheated if the director had significantly compromised the integrity of his compositions to cater to lesser formats and projection methods.

Of course, the corollary is that if you paid to see it in 35mm or on DVD (as I also have), you truly are being cheated. But that would be a criticism of the film's distribution and DVD production, and a criticism of Nolan only to the extent in which he was involved with it. It would not count as a strike against the film itself (a distinction you yourself rightfully make), or of Nolan's original composition.

JE: Yes, as I said, it mitigates some of my criticism. I chose this shot as one concrete example of many that made me feel I wasn't seeing what I needed to see -- with no idea of why Nolan chose to shoot it this way. That's gotten turned around by some people, as if I had said: "This one shot ruined the whole movie for me!" Which is not at all what I said. Anyway, my point is that I think it would have been more exciting to see the bus emerge, from a wider angle further to the left. Again, I'm trying to give a specific example of the kind of decisions that can make the difference between an OK movie and a really thrilling one. So, I stand by my criticism that the framing is too tight because Nolan knew he was composing for more than one ratio, that the film would only be available in IMAX for a limited time in certain cities, and that most audiences would see it in regular theaters and on DVD, where it would be cropped. All the more reason to allow greater breathing room in the shot, to avoid chopping out (expensive) effects that add so much to the movie's "production values."

Jim-

I don't know if you really mean it when you say you feel discouraged for not making readers fully understand your points through this multiple TDK posting. If you do, I must say that I come all the way back from Spain, and that both as a moviegoer and a aspirant-director I learned a lot about visual storytelling. I enjoyed very much the discussion too. See? You have influence, even overseas.

And now that your self steam is back where it should be, I agree with those who say that you don't apply the same principles when reviewing movies you like, for example, The Fight Club. (SPOILERS ahead)
How are we supposed to believe, in the final secuences, that a man can convince himself of his double personality as an actual physical presence, so strong, that can throw him around like a football? Besides, is it really possible without someone actually throwing you around? Isn't it cheaty not to show the viewer what's going on everytime Pitt hits Norton so heavily?

"On the contrary; it's merely another reason to see films exhibited the way they were intended."

I think it's a little less cut-and dry, Mark, because as Jim pointed out, Nolan knew that the framing would have to be cropped for the majority of the film's exhibition. This isn't the same as a film being butchered and retrofitted to a TV screen. Furthermore, Nolan made the decision to shoot the non-iMax portions of the film in 2.35:1 and present the film in that ratio, when he could have shot at 1.85:1, which would have been much closer to iMax's 1.44:1. I applaud his willingness to explore other formats, but don't think it gives him a free pass to not compose for his main exhibition ratio.

While I don't agree with all of Jim's assessments, I see no reason to object to him basing them on the most common exhibition ratio of the film.

[SPOILER coming, although I assume everyone has seen the movie by now.]

I find Zackarek's critique (cited in the previous post) that the film doesn't show the abduction a bit hollow. We don't see the abduction because the Joker was essentially distracting the people who should've been protecting them. That much at least makes sense from the point of view of the characters. The sequence I had the most problem with was Gordon's supposed faking of his own death. It makes no sense that such a major character would be killed off screen, just so we could learn of his death when his family is told. ("Was that Gordon's family?" I wondered. "Is he supposed to have faked his death?") It was surely one of the sloppiest ways I've ever seen a film try to double-cross its audience, and I found it even less satisfying on a second viewing, when I knew what to watch for during the assassination. Did anyone actually believe that anything happened to Gordon?

But this is still baffling, especially on the part of those who mastered the DVD version.

A 2.35:1 aspect is wider/shorter than 1.78:1, not the other way around. If anything, the DVD and 35mm versions should have the same or even *more* information on the sides, not less.

Take movies shot on Super 35, for instance. Versions matted to 1.78:1 or 1.85:1 open-up the top and bottom of the frame but lose a little on the sides. Conversely, 2.35:1 versions gain periphery but lose height.

So the IMAX scenes on the DVD are not only matted-down for 2.35:1, but it appears they've been further cropped for strange and inscrutable reasons.

If you think that's bad, groove on this: I recently saw TDK on Pay Per View, and they cropped the *whole* thing to 1.78:1, including the 2.35:1, 35mm scenes. It was like having your eyeballs choked for two hours.

JE: Unbelievable. One of the most popular movies of all time and Warner Bros. doesn't care how it's being shown -- in its very first TV and home video releases?!?! That's like releasing panned-and-scanned prints for the first run theatrical engagement.

"A 2.35:1 aspect is wider/shorter than 1.78:1, not the other way around. If anything, the DVD and 35mm versions should have the same or even *more* information on the sides, not less."

I was under the impression that the width was maintained while the height was cropped down to 2.35:1 theatrically and on DVD. I also assumed that the blu-ray switched from 2.35 to 1.78 depending on the material shot in scope (which can't be opened up like super-35), and didn't crop the width at all on either (although still cropped the height, though not as much). Are you saying this isn't the case?

Most 2.35 aren't matted. They use different lenses, that compress the width on the negative. This way there is more visual information on the negative than there is with normal, spherical lenses. Some choose to mat, which wastes film surface, but I don't think Nolan does. He's an anamorphic guy.

Some scenes in TDK were shot in IMAX, which is a much larger negative, and thus has much more visual information. The way they adjusted these scenes to 2.35 is by choosing a 2.35 frame of the digital intermediate of the IMAX footage. Nolan and Pfister personally supervised this.

I recently watched the IMAX scenes on DVD though, and it seemed to me like the scenes that felt were difficult to read in the theatre (2.35), meaning the truck chase on the lower fifth and the fighting in the building under construction at the end, were much easier to read in the IMAX framing.

I really don't appreciate your arrogant little comment about having "an eye for the camera's optimal movement and location."

Sorry we're not smart enough to dislike this movie like you, Jim.

JE: Oh, come on, Josh. That was, I thought, a pretty obvious rhetorical slap in the face ("Wake up!") in response to those who've been claiming that criticism of camera placement is petty or insignificant. It's not. As hard as I try, I can't seem to get more people to focus on the shot instead of assuming that "like" or "dislike" is all there is to it. And who said anything about "smart"? I put the shot right here on the page (twice) and asked people to tell me what they see -- all that's involved is paying attention to the shot. Where are the fans pointing out all the details that they think make this a brilliant, exhilarating piece of filmmaking? I've mentioned several things I appreciate about it -- and there's a LOT going on in it. Is the only way to defend and celebrate "The Dark Knight" to attack the motives of somebody who criticizes it?

I think the film was shot spherical with super-35, which contains less information but doesn't have some of the slight distortions inherent in Cinemascope. I haven't watched it since its theatrical release, however, so I wouldn't bet on it. Either way it's beside the point, as the material shot in 2.35:1 isn't the material in question.

The Dark Knight was mostly shot in genuine 35mm Panavision (anamorphic), with about 1/4th show in genuine IMAX. IMAX prints had the Panavision footage letterboxed to 2.20:1 and the IMAX scenes... full screen obviously. 35mm prints kept the Panavision footage as-is, but reframed the IMAX footage to 2.35:1 just like how Super-35 works. The BluRay keeps the Panavision footage as-is, but reframes the IMAX footage to only 1.78:1 instead of 2.35:1. The widescreen DVD is identical to the 35mm "all 2.35:1" version.

If you ever want to check a 2.35:1 film to see if it was shot anamorphic, just keep your eyes on rack focus shots. You'll notice a slight "squash" in the image as focus shifts from foreground to background due to the lens.

Well it's because you're focusing on such an insignificant shot...It doesn't really create a flaw in the movie. The Godfather has 50 of these mistakes. Kane has 30.

I know how important the framing of a shot is, and I've always automatically noticed it and played it along with the music, lighting, angle, etc in my head (I used to make movies on my mum's camera two or three years ago for fun), but why not pick a better one?

JE: I think its length and its significance as the visual flourish at the end of the opening sequence make it pretty darned important. My first thought was to look at the way Nolan shoots Batman and Rachel's fall onto the taxi cab, but it all goes by so fast I thought it would be more difficult to talk about.

So, I stand by my criticism that the framing is too tight because Nolan knew he was composing for more than one ratio, that the film would only be available in IMAX for a limited time in certain cities, and that most audiences would see it in regular theaters and on DVD, where it would be cropped.
I applaud his willingness to explore other formats, but don't think it gives him a free pass to not compose for his main exhibition ratio.

Jim and Jeremy, I definitely appreciate where you're coming from, but I disagree. Just because 2.35:1 is the main exhibition ratio in which most people have currently viewed the film doesn't mean Nolan has any obligation to compose for it; as an artist, he maintains the right to compose for whatever projection setup he wants, and to have his work evaluated in that format. And while he could have shot the rest of the film in 1.85 to more closely match the IMAX sequences, he obviously preferred 2.35 for his own reasons when it was not feasible to shoot with IMAX equipment.

I admit that a 2.35 crop for a wide theatrical release is not the same as a pan-and-scan video release, Jeremy, but it's Nolan's right to think of it that way if he chooses. After all, if by "main exhibition ratio" you mean the ratio in which the film is viewed by the greatest number of people, one could argue that until recently, the "main exhibition ratio" was pan-and-scan on VHS and TV replays. (Although I can't help but wonder: have any directors ever admitted to compromising their compositions due to the assumption that their films would be most widely seen on video with pan-and-scan?) Although Nolan supervised the 2.35:1 print, his preferred cut is clearly the variable AR one, and I reckon that in an ideal world, he would want everyone to see to see the film that way; from what I've read, he seemed very intent on ensuring that the Blu-ray would feature variable AR. Furthermore, as adoption of Blu-ray and other HD formats increase, it's perfectly possible--even likely--that 100 years from now, more people will have seen the variable AR version than the cropped one.

It's true that his decision is self-defeating (at least, in the short term while IMAX and HD adoption languish) as it prevents most people from seeing the film the way he intended, and I agree with you both that those who don't have access to Blu-ray or IMAX are being cheated. But he has no artistic obligation to make his film for those people. If you object to seeing the film in the inferior format, you can vote with your wallet and not go, and surely criticize his distribution decisions (and his marketing decisions for not making it clear that you're getting an inferior product if you see the cropped one). But as has been said, the actual content of the film itself as art stands alone, and apart from the process of distributing it. He could have shot the movie in a pi:1 ratio to be shown exclusively on a projector he built in his mother's basement; if he wanted to, that's the way his film should be judged. If he chose to produce a bowdlerized, cropped print for a wide theatrical release, he might be doing both his work and his paying public a disservice, and he certainly opens himself up to legitimate criticism as to how well the crop works; but these are not grounds on which to criticize his original compositions.

As an even more extreme example than TDK, I recall reading that Steven Soderbergh shot The Good German (disclaimer: I haven't seen it) in 1.33:1 to recreate the AR of classical Hollywood even though almost every theater it played in showed it in 1.66:1. Soderbergh obviously knew that the film would almost never be seen in a theater the way he wanted, but he's perfectly within his rights to go ahead and make the 1.33:1 film he set out to make without having his compositions be judged as cramped based solely on the 1.66 theatrical print.

"I was under the impression that the width was maintained while the height was cropped down to 2.35:1 theatrically and on DVD. I also assumed that the blu-ray switched from 2.35 to 1.78 depending on the material shot in scope (which can't be opened up like super-35), and didn't crop the width at all on either (although still cropped the height, though not as much). Are you saying this isn't the case?"

No, you're right; at least, that's one way they could've done it. For the IMAX scenes, the DVD version should lose information on the top and bottom, but for some reason it seems they've lost info on the sides as well. This signifies to me not only a matte, but an optical crop.

I brought up Super 35 only because they used 70mm IMAX film as a master negative, which was then struck to various other formats. This is somewhat similar to a Super 35 process, in which anamorphic 2.35:1 prints are usually opened up on the sides a bit, while other aspect ratios (1.37 - 1.85:1) are matted-down on the sides but opened up even more on the top and bottom. Framing for multiple aspect-ratios at the same time is practically a science, and simply matting-out the top and bottom is almost never the best approach. If they weren't framing and matting their IMAX footage this way, it might explain why it's discombobulating to watch it in any aspect ratio other than the original 1.44:1.

Anyway, I suspect the 35mm anamorphic prints were also cropped - the Blu-ray was probably mastered with the IMAX negatives, and the DVD was probably mastered entirely off the 35mm print, which explains the discrepancy between the two. I also suspect the reason for the cropping lies in the anamorphic-squeeze process that the lab probably used on the IMAX footage to standardize the 35mm prints, but I've certainly never shot on an IMAX workflow (I wish), and my thoughts would just be wild conjecture.

Also, as a cinematographer myself, I completely agree with Mark. It's nice when filmmakers shoot for several aspect-ratios (Kubrick and Cameron got it down to perfection), but it's certainly not an obligation. I'm ambivalent towards TDK as a narrative movie, but I absolutely *love* the fact that Nolan had enough cajones not only to shoot some of it in IMAX, but to release a mainstream movie with a variable AR (the only other examples I can think of are "Dr. Strangelove" and "Brainscan"). TDK was intended to blow-out your eye sockets at a glorious 70mm of resolution; I could never criticize these guys for not obliging the constraints of home video.

In fact, the elephant in the room is that if you watch any film source on a DVD, you're just not getting the full experience. When I watched "Chinatown" on a big home theater, it bored the hell out of me. When I saw a 35mm restoration in a theater a few years later, I couldn't move a damn muscle I was so transfixed.

But anyway, I actually think filmmakers should move *away* from accomodating home-video formats. Take 'overscan protection,' for instance. Because of the way most TVs work, its verboten for modern cinematographers to put important visual information in the very edges of the frame, because it'll eventually get cut off when people watch it at home. That means a good ~5% of every shot has to be dead space. Pretty lame.

JE: VERY lame. Ten or twenty years ago we worried about aperture plates and masking that would allow boom microphones to dip down into scenes in third run local cinemas. Now we don't seem to have any guarantee of quality control anywhere down the line. Jim Cameron shot 65 mm and 35 mm anamorphic for "The Abyss" and "Terminator 2" -- "full screen" for laser disc and "letterboxed" for VHS... Who approves the various versions and aspect ratios for DVD, PPV and Blu-ray today?

Jim,

I think it is important to look at this shot as the final resolve to the entire bank heist sequence. Some have noted the implausibility of the situation (perfect timing with traffic lights, inattentive bus drivers and police, etc). I think the framing and movement of the shot actually help alleviate the implausibility of the sequence. The composition and timing helped me suspend my disbelief.

The climax of the bank scene is the Joker revealing his face to the Bank Manager. The tense music resolves in chord and the Joker (the most anticipated character of the film) is revealed in a distorted extreme close up. The effect is discomforting because the wide angle (lens, not distance) and P.O.V puts the audience in the position of the Bank Manager staring up at this disfigured creature. Now the camera cuts to a slightly wider shot of the Joker standing over Banker's body with the grenade still in his mouth. The Joker walks off screen right and the camera pulls back while a string attached to the grenade also travels off screen right. Cut to the reverse shot showing the back of the bus (not exactly the POV of the Banker, but a similar position). The Joker enters from screen left as the string follows him from the bottom/left side of the screen. The camera pushes in on bus as the Joker hops in and shuts the door, leaving a string that travels from the now closed bus door down the bottom left of the frame. Cut back to full shot of Banker, grenade in mouth with a string attached to the pin being pulled tight from the bottom right of the frame. String pulls and pin is released and camera pushes in on Banker. Benign smoke erupts from grenade as Banker sighs.

Why did I take the time to describe all this? I want to now show why the final shot works in this context. As you mentioned earlier the "fun" of the scene is how the audience is always one step behind the Joker and we must figure out what he's doing as he does it. As I stated earlier the climax is the tight shot on the Joker's face. After that shot, the music drops out. Now the scene is more open and for the first time we can anticipate an event before it happens. The camera has also made us identify with the Banker with POV shots and the horror of the situation. The string situation is deliberately set up for the audience and Banker. He(we) know with the motion of the camera that the string will be pulled when the bus leaves and trigger the grenade. We construct this and anticipate the event. So when the string pulls the pin (which means we know the Joker is leaving) the camera pushes in on the Banker instead of following the Joker out. We are willing to leave the Joker because we want to hang around and see what will happen next with the Banker. We're bracing for a horrific moment. When nothing but smoke appears we sigh in relief along with the Banker.

Now, as the director of the film, what does Nolan show now? How much new information does he give the audience? The Joker has been in control for the entire sequence. Nolan controls the amount of information we are given. So we are as manipulated by the director as the Banker is by the Joker. Nolan states as much by faking us out with the grenade. He is in control and we must accept it. So the next and final shot starts by giving us no more information than we already have (a bus is leaving the doorway of a bank). We are forced again to be lead by Nolan and the Joker. They still know more than we do. The shot then pans left and pulls out. The effect is slightly disorienting as we realize the bus is pulling onto a busy street and travels up screen left as another school bus follows behind. The sound of children is heard. Cop cars travel in the opposite direction (down screen right). The shot resolves in a wide shot of the city as the bus, now one of many, travels up screen into the distance. We quickly construct from this information that the Joker planned to slip into the school bus line, narrowly escaped the police and will safely travel into the city. End of scene.

What's wrong with this picture? In my opinion nothing. It does exactly what Nolan needs it to do. It shows that the Joker was in complete control of the entire bank heist. It shows that the Joker will use deception for his gain such as slipping away after a crime. Most importantly it shows that Nolan will use the control of visual information to pace out how much the audience knows. He will ask us to identify with characters and then use the Joker to challenge our feels towards the characters and situations.

I think it is important to note that Nolan's shot's are intentional. They are not sloppy or poorly thought through. It is unfortunate that his attempt to embrace a newer film format (IMAX) has resulted in unequal viewing conditions. For me this scene worked very well. I was wrapped up in the moment. It obviously did not work for you. Who is "right"? You rejected the manipulation. That's unfortunate. I appreciated Nolan's manipulation, finding it clever. I marveled at the spectacle and was engaged by remarkable performances. I found ideas and ideals thoughtfully explored in a "summer comic book movie". I had a fulfilling time at the movies, what more can I ask?

- Feel free to edit this if it's too long. BTW, I live in Seattle and would love the chance to discourse with other thoughtful people about film. -

"Who approves the various versions and aspect ratios for DVD, PPV and Blu-ray today?"

Almost always the distributor, or whoever ends up with copyright. A few of our more particular filmmakers have drawn up contracts to stipulate the AR - Woody Allen famously prevented "Manhattan" from ever being pan-and-scanned or cropped in any way (blithely wrecking home-video distribution sales in the process, God love him), and it seems that Nolan exerted some sort of similar control over this Blu-ray edition.

Speaking of Cameron... isn't it strange that his name seems absent from TDK discussion? Seems to me, the movie is a direct descendent of the James Cameron school of action filmmaking, from the apocalyptic tone to the unrelenting pace, right down to an outrageous action-sequence lovingly devoted to semi trucks. I just don't think Nolan was up to it: TDK is inchoate and rambling, whereas Cameron's direction (from "Aliens" through "T2") is a freaking vice-grip of precision. Most importantly, he's a master of spatial logic, even in the most chaotic of sequences. TDK could've used a big dose of that, no?

Thanks for the technical specs, Og. As I said, I hadn't watched the film since it came out, so couldn't remember if it was shot anamorphic or not (I assumed not, since the topic of Super-35 came up, but it turned out it was in relation to cropping IMAX)

"If they weren't framing and matting their IMAX footage this way, it might explain why it's discombobulating to watch it in any aspect ratio other than the original 1.44:1."

Chris and Mark, I agree that Nolan should feel free to compose in any aspect ratio he chooses. However, "The Dark Knight" was released in 2.35:1. "The Dark Knight: The IMAX Experience" is the film that's VAR. Perhaps Nolan should have subtitled the fixed AR version "The Compromised 35mm Experience."

Also Chris, I personally haven't watched The Dark Knight on DVD, but agree 100-percent that you lose something when watching on home formats.

"Furthermore, as adoption of Blu-ray and other HD formats increase, it's perfectly possible--even likely--that 100 years from now, more people will have seen the variable AR version than the cropped one."

Yes, but they won't have seen the correct two ARs—they'll still have a cropped 1.78:1 picture. Also—why does only the Blu-ray feature the iMax scenes in 1.78 if that's the preferred format? Authoring a DVD in the same scheme isn't difficult (the anamorphic DVD transfer is mastered in 1.78:1 with letterboxed bars anyhow, so why not use the same VAR version?) How frustrating. It makes zero sense.

Jim, I feel you may have picked a weak example if you're out to prove that Nolan's direction is unclear regarding what's going on. In some cases it is murky, but not really in this one. Cameron described the full scene. From a purely academic standpoint of unclear storytelling, we already knew the bus was in the wall, and we already knew it was pulling out of the bank. Now, in your case he certainly didn't live up to the Preston Sturges rule of showing the audience exactly what they want to look at, but I think that many viewers were more interested in the bus-line payoff than the hole in the bank. If you want to see a gaping hole in the bank, Nolan missed out. If you want to see the bus vanish into the city as if nothing had happened, Nolan's shot better creates that feeling.

"Authoring a DVD in the same scheme isn't difficult (the anamorphic DVD transfer is mastered in 1.78:1 with letterboxed bars anyhow, so why not use the same VAR version?) How frustrating. It makes zero sense."

Absolutely agree. There's no reason why they couldn't have mastered the DVD from the same materials, especially since a DVD presentation would've benefited in exactly the same way (even more so, since resolution is at a higher premium).

First off Jim -- what an amazing video!! Where on earth did you find that???

Ok: from that angle, the scene looks a little bit ridiculous. But Nolan didn't SHOOT IT from that angle. From the angle that Nolan shot it from, I still think it managed to achieve credibility. If nothing else, it shows how Nolan's visual sleight of hand can make contrived situations seem possible, or convincing. The magic of the movies, I guess. But like any magic trick, it breaks down a little the more you analyse it. With your keen sense of breaking movies down to individual shots, I think you were born to tear this scene in the movie apart!

Having said that, I still have no major problems with the scene as Nolan initially shot it, because it appears in THAT shot that the bus has come out of the bank into the middle of an intersection.

Yes, but they won't have seen the correct two ARs—they'll still have a cropped 1.78:1 picture.
Jeremy, you're absolutely right; my point was just that the "main exhibition ratio" is a matter of happenstance; it can change over time under the influence of the meandering progression of technology as well as audiences' taste. It's a reflection of the society that views it, not of the work of the filmmaker (e.g., Soderbergh and The Good German). And Chris, I agree--I don't want filmmakers to be put in the situation of making compromises for home video; I'd much rather see what they wanted me to see in a theater.

I completely agree with both of you on the criticism of the DVD release. Come to think of it, seeing as how the majority of DVD players are hooked up to 4:3 SD TVs, you could even fit the entire IMAX frame on it. There could have been a disc with the IMAX sequences in 1.78:1 for people who use their DVD players with widescreen TVs, and another for those with 4:3 TVs. It would be similar to Pixar's releases where one disc contains the theatrical widescreen presentation and the other has a fullscreen treatment, reframed and rerendered so that it reveals the image beyond the top and bottom of the frame instead of cropping the sides.

Anyway, my original point was just that distribution decisions such as those shouldn't color one's perception of the film itself, and that a director's decisions as an artist stand apart from whatever decisions he makes as he attempts to be caretaker of his work. Whatever limitations the 35mm print has, it doesn't take anything away from TDK: The Imax Experience, which for me, will always be the "real" TDK--its true form, in its natural habitat.

I didn't find the school bus shot physically confusing in the theater, and I was wondering why it seemed so different in your post. Finally I had the obvious thought and checked my Blu-ray copy...yep, it was much easier to tell it was the bank door when you could see more of the image, and when I'd seen it in IMAX it must have been easier still.

But it brings to mind something that's been bugging me about the all-2.35:1 version of 'The Dark Knight.' When the Blu-ray came out, people with a certain type of projector were unhappy with the shifting aspect ratios. This projector involves, apparently, adjusting for each movie based on the aspect ratio; the height of the projected image is always the same, but a movie is wider or narrower depending upon whether it's actually wider or narrower (sort of like a theater screen opening and closing its curtains). The shifting between aspect ratios on this movie meant that there were only two options: either they could watch it in 1.78:1 mode, with all of the 35mm footage windowboxed, or in 2.35:1 mode, with the IMAX footage chopped off on the top and bottom.

The theory was floated that all of the IMAX shots might be composed for the center anyhow (sort of like an open matte or Super 35 movie), and all they'd get is a fascimile of the 35mm print if they cut off the top and bottom. Someone compared it with the DVD release...and no, the IMAX sequences were pan & scanned (vertically speaking), with the action being taken from a different place in the IMAX frame from shot to shot! This seemed awfully weird to me, as it would seem to create a lot more busywork than it needed to during post-production, and also created the danger of a shot that just didn't crop prettily to 2.35:1. I guess if you find the film badly planned on the physical level, that's another piece of the puzzle.

I wonder, since you also brought up performance at the top of the thread(or director's choices regarding them, in the editing room), what you thought of the beginning of Rolph De Heer's 'The Tracker'. This was the first time I noticed that something felt a bit "off", and I realised that, for me, it was the delivery, and the pauses in conversation.
Just as strange was that after the massacre scene - some fifteen minutes in - the film feels like a film again, and not a workshop.
Great piece, thank you; I'll be thinking about this all weekend.

I'm a little bit late to the discussion, but since nobody else seems to have done it, I'd like to point out that the digital copy of on the extras disc of the two-disc DVD uses the IMAX scenes in their proper aspect ratio, instead of the cropped 2:35:1 versions on the main movie disc, so people without Blu-Ray players at least have the option of viewing the scenes within the movie and not merely as stand alone scenes.