Jonathan Lapper of Cinema Styles, who's also a valued contributor in comments here at scanners, takes me to task for my recent analyses (or over-analyses, if you prefer) of clips from "The Dark Knight" ("Is that any way to review a movie?"). I'll answer that question myself: No, and I wasn't claiming to be writing a review of the movie. But here's what Jonathan wrote:
Telling me the school bus escape doesn't make sense doesn't tell me "The Dark Knight" is a bad movie. It tells me that particular scene doesn't make sense. In the meantime, I've learned nothing about the rest of the film. I've learned nothing about the themes of the film. I've learned nothing about the story, the characters or the plot's development. In short, I've learned nothing except that the critic publishing the piece knows how to pick a scene out of a film to suit his or her purpose. That way lies sophistry. And that's no way to review a movie.
Ouch. I have to say, if that's what I had pretended to be doing I wouldn't have approved of it, either. But I feel my method and intent have been misinterpreted (largely because I think I botched the approach myself), so I'd like to try, at least, to set the record straight here (as I also did in Jonathan's comments):
(Again: This post is entirely self-serving. If you want to go through this with me once more, please click; if not, please don't.)
1) I did not say that, from this one shot alone, I had reached the conclusion that "TDK" was a "bad movie." I presented it as one of many examples of the directorial decisions I thought made the movie less visually dynamic than it might have been. I had written about different aspects of "The Dark Knight" (including "the story, the characters, the plot's development" -- and the themes, the use of expository dialog and more) when it was originally released, and in the months since. (I made a Dark Knight category for them all.)
Something Keith Uhlich at the House Next Door had said, and that I had quoted last August, stayed with me. He called it "Cuisinarted spectacle," but said he thought that was "intentional to some degree, even though I think it was, ultimately, a failed artistic choice." So, when "TDK" finally became available on DVD in December I took the opportunity to take a look at it from a different angle, to take a good close look at Nolan's artistic choices, at individual images and sequences and the ways they were put together. That approach is not a substitution for, or a repudiation of, a broader look at the film like the ones people had been offering in the months since the movie first appeared.
I used the film's opening shot (see Opening Shots Project, begun in 2006) to examine in detail something I thought worked well in the movie -- and to compare it with its companion/bookend shot (the pull-out at the end of the bank robbery, or "prologue" sequence), to help explain what I felt didn't work well in the latter. I examined how both functioned in the bank robbery sequence -- as set-up and cap-off. And it all had to do with context, with framing, with stylistic choices.
I'd already quoted David Bordwell, who'd zeroed in on it more effectively (and far more concisely) that I:
The fights and chases were as unintelligible as most such sequences are nowadays, and the usual roaming-camera formulas were applied without much variety. Shoot lots of singles, track slowly in on everybody who's speaking, spin a circle around characters now and then, and transition to a new scene with a quick airborne shot of a cityscape...
(BTW, Jonathan has his own criticisms of "TDK," many of which I share, but he does not attempt to make disagreement itself the subject of disagreement, as a friend recently phrased it. To do so is to avoid engaging with what's actually being said, and I believe he was making a genuine effort to engage or I wouldn't have felt, however defensively, to respond in such detail. I'm still trying to get it right myself.)
Jonathan felt it was misleading and counter-productive for me to examine the shot in isolation from the rest of the film. I approached it as a kind of microcosm for the kinds of decisions I thought Nolan made again and again throughout the film (at one point I cited five other examples in a single paragraph) that left me feeling dissatisfied even on a purely kinetic, action-movie level. Other reservations aside, that's what I wanted to focus on here.
But...
... I also set it up as a question of plausibility (What do you have to accept in order to accept what this shot shows?) -- which was a distraction and a HUGE mistake! I should have stayed focused on the one thing, which was far more important. No matter how hard I would try to redefine what I'd intended later, no matter how many times I would talk about the visual integrity of compositions and sequences rather than mere "plot holes," I couldn't undo the first impression I'd made. Almost immediately second-guessing myself, I quickly added to the original post and likely compounded my initial error by bringing up tangential arguments having to do with the concept of the Joker:
... but first perhaps further introduction/explanation is necessary: People have been debating for months about the phenomenally popular "TDK," arguing that it is "incoherent" or "not incoherent" or "more incoherent on second viewing" or "less incoherent on second viewing" or "incoherent but it doesn't matter" or "incoherent on purpose because the Joker is an agent of chaos" or whatever. So, I thought I'd start with a small example of what I find so disappointing about the film (and plausibility is the least of it, though it defies its own rules of plausibility from moment to moment... possibly because the Joker is an agent of chaos and therefore wily and unpredictable, except when he isn't, which is part of the unpredictable part, because he absolutely insists that he is mayhem-y and anarch-ish, but maybe he's not telling the truth about that, either).
What a smart-ass I can be.
2) So, although I completely understand why people would have thought otherwise, I was not using the shot merely to say that the story, or the movie, "doesn't make sense." (Aside: Interesting arguments were made in the comments, though, about how the Joker was all about inexplicable effect and not about cause, about disorientation in the moment rather than logic.) Here's what I wrote:
The point I want to make, and it sounds really simple but shouldn't be taken for granted, is that we are inclined to believe what we see in a movie, and every shot represents innumerable choices about what to include, what to leave out, and what to put where. I think this particular shot is a bit of a cheat, and I felt cheated by it the first time I saw it -- not merely because it suggests so many implausibilities (that's a minor distraction in the moment itself), but because it's an important shot that falls a little flat -- a sustained crane shot that pulls back and doesn't show us what we're meant to "see": the bus exiting the bank. This is just one of countless instances in "The Dark Knight" where the movie fails to show what it tells us we should believe.
In other words, as in the opening shot I'd described, a movie-moment doesn't have to make "sense" on the level of practical or plot logic to be thrillingly convincing. What matters is what appears on the screen, and how it is presented. It should have been as simple as saying: This particular shot of a bus pulling out of the bank into which it has crashed would have been more exciting, to me, if the camera had been placed so that we could actually see the exit more clearly. But I made it needlessly complicated, trying to do too much all at once. (I was right in ways I did not know when I said the shot felt "cramped" to me, though. It was. A reader noticed that it had actually been cropped for DVD and 35mm release. So, even the full scope of the shot the way Nolan composed it can only be seen in the Blu-ray and IMAX versions of the film. I still think it's too tight.) Remember: I'm the guy who likes to take apart jokes to examine what makes them funny. (I draw the line at vivisection, however.)
3) Jonathan says he took away nothing from my posts other than an illustration that "the critic publishing the piece knows how to pick a scene out of a film to suit his or her purpose. That way lies sophistry." He uses some examples from "Citizen Kane" and "Casablana," Edward Hopper and Vincent Van Gogh, to illustrate. I counter-argued in his comments section that I don't think the comparisons to what I did are valid, though obviously I can't argue that things can be taken out of context and used for selfish purposes. (We did just suffer through an endless presidential campaign, didn't we?)
I'll say this about the whole "TDK" experiment: I stand by my intentions and the critical instincts behind my approach. But I can point to examples in my own writing where I fumbled the execution, even though the concept behind it may have been sound. Just as I accuse "TDK" of doing.
Hey man, whether it's you, me, or Chris Nolan himself, nobody's perfect. Personally, I learned a lot from your "bus shot" marathon and I see the point you were trying to make, although overall it didn't change the fact that The Dark Knight was the most thrilling film I saw last year.
Peace.
Jim,
Just because some people did not understand that you were focusing on an example of a larger problem does not mean that it was not completely clear to the majority of your readers that you were doing so.
Regards,
Eric
brilliant! loved it, read something similar on this site..
http://web.me.com/wardparry/Site_2/Welcome.html
Aaack! First, how did I miss this post yesterday? I saw the "Mall Cop" one but not this. Anyway, first, thank you for taking the time to respond. Second - AND MOST IMPORTANTLY - this whole post of mine was an experiment, so to speak, to see if one could apply the same critical methods of clip analysis to a movie like Citizen Kane and determine that it is a poorly made film. I mentioned that in my own comment thread, also mentioned in the post itself that I love Kane but I'm afraid it's still being lost in all of this. I want to make sure people understand that: I don't believe the clips of Kane show anything wrong with the movie, I was using them to show that you could use clips to "prove" any movie on earth was bad if that was your purpose.
Also, Jim clarified quite a bit in the comment thread of my post. You say you may have fumbled some things in your posts on the subject and I have to say that I feel I fumbled in not making it clearer that the purpose was to see if this critical method could be manipulated to make an argument for incompetence with any movie (which is of course why I picked Kane, the top dog). Also, I didn't like TDK at all and found myself in the curious position of "defending" it in the comment section of my post. All in all, it was a valuable learning experience about clip analysis and film criticism in a multimedia age. But now I feel kind of bad. I don't think you engage in sophistry Jim, I was simply saying that these methods of picking and choosing clips could lead there. And I took a lot away from your posts. I fear my wording in my post may have been harsher than intended, and if so, I apologize. It was a rare dive into metacritical waters for me but one that I'd like to try again. But next time I'll pick on Larry or Dennis. They're used to it from me at this point anyway.
I appreciate this post, and I'm coming to believe that this isn't the sort of discussion that can be handled easily or in texts. At this point, after this much discussion, I'm not sure anything short of a series of seminars could accomplish this discussion thoroughly.
It takes a lot of character to come out and clarify like you have been and acknowledge when you were in error (and when you weren't). So, thanks for that.
I should say, I have been enjoying this discussion as you can provide arguments for your analysis beyond the usual "I don't know, man... it just didn't do it for me." That I usually get. It's helped me to watch movies and get more out of what they're doing.
Most critics are too lazy to provide examples. Too lazy to pick apart a film. Or when they want to do scene-by-scene types of analysis, they only choose 'good' films. You chose, what I'd consider, a good film with flaws. The flaws gave you a negative reaction to the film (probably enhanced by the frustration of the vast acclaim the film got from critics and pop culture alike); whereas for me, I recognize the flaws, accept them, but I still enjoy the movie for its strong points.
Then again I think the TDK is a horror movie, and that the Joker is Lovecraftian (and a good one at that). So what do I know?
Agreed with Eric. I don't think TDK is really worth talking about very much, but your dissections of individual shots as part of the bigger picture (both of TDK and modern cinema in general) are very enlightening. Let the haters hate. Or, in this example, the lovers love.
Jim--
Personally, I thought it was a good discussion, and I'm glad you started it, even if it did occasionally get side-tracked. I think my only lingering problem is that, despite it all, I never really got a sense of why you think the framing and editing choices that Nolan made were actually [i]bad[/i]. You described what was there well enough, and told us what you didn't like, but it seemed like the explanation stopped there. For example, you say a clearer view of the bus emerging would have made you appreciate the scene more. Okay, maybe, but why? I like the scene as it is and am unconvinced a change wouldn't damage it. Or the shot of Batman and Rachel's fall--you found it hard to follow because of the quick cuts? Okay, that's unfortunate, but I didn't. I found the quick cuts allowed the director to simultaneously show the action and keep the drama focused on the characters without slowing down what should be a fast, terrifying freefall. It's unfortunate you felt the way you did, but why should the film be shot for you rather than me? Is there something even close to objective in here that we can evaluate?
Jim,
You worry too much. ;P
Take it easy,
Dan
As the posts progressed, and as things got off track, I began to wonder how you might have been able to approach this differently.
My basic thought was that maybe if, in the initial post, you'd brought five or ten examples similar to the one with the busses, people would have taken the pill more easily. They may have seen a bigger argument at hand. I'd felt that you were clear about the notion that this small example is indicative of the whole, but it's apparent that others did not.
However flubbed the whole experiment might have been, I'll say this: I think there is a time and place for this type of criticism. Did people balk when you examined Daniel Day-Lewis raising his arm in "There Will Be Blood"? Did that one scene make the whole picture good? I think it's easy to pal around with movie buddies and get into what we like and don't like. We can talk about broader issues like story structure and acting, but it can be harder to define our reactions to editing and framing techniques.
Those type of posts, even though I can't claim any big interest in TDK, are why I've stuck to this blog. You've been willing to analyze movies in a way that most traditional print criticism cannot or will not. A newspaper critic too often has to deal with restrictions in space, not being allowed to "spoil" the movie (and in turn, not be able to completely engage it), and also manage to hold the interests of their broad range of readers. And I suppose that's why you left print criticism.
"Jonathan felt it was misleading and counter-productive for me to examine the shot in isolation from the rest of the film."
Why then, was the TDK opening sequence included as a stand-alone mini-movie with trailers of IMAX films such as "I Am Legend"? If ever there was a scene in TDK to pick apart in isolation it would be that one.
I mostly stayed out of the previous Dark Knight threads because I wanted to see it again before chiming in. Like you, I found the film chronically dissatisfying. In that same article Dr. Bordwell discussed how he grew tired of the repetitive situations-- ticking time bombs, who's really dead once and for all, etc., and that's certainly PART of it, but the film is also simply off in the visual sense, which I think the wonderful Dark Knight threads began to scratch the surface of. It's rhythm feels disjointed, and IMO every single scene ends on a 'sour' note.
Any scene, whether good or bad, feels over before it started. We can apply that to the film's visual syntax also; every image, whether good or bad, is gone before it's had a chance to properly register. Nolan's film has brilliant set design that echos Blade Runner or even 2001: A Space Odyssey, and Nolan does zilch with it. He establishes these labyrinths, and then cuts to a boring shot/reverse shot aesthetic, where the contrived script is suddenly thrust into center stage. Caine is the only performer seasoned enough that you don't notice how banal the spoken word is.
Which is utterly tragic to me, because when Nolan does manage to strike the right visual note I think he manages to visually covey thematically what the dialog simply can't. The oft-cited shot of Ledger walking out of the exploding hospital is such a bit of inspired insanity it casts light on how lacking the rest of the film is in the personality sense. But my favorite image, by far, is the incredible 180 degree shot of Ledger dangling from Trump Tower. Problems aside, at the end of the day I think it's a very effective screen pairing of one of comic books most iconic rivalries.
But, to paraphrase Mark Twain, I feel as though instead of picking the correct image, the correct staging, the correct cut to express an emotion or idea, he picks its second cousin. For instance, the shot of Ledger dangling his head out the police car window feels gone before it even started. I like the first scene of Gordon, Dent, and Batman on the rooftop together, but I feel as though it would have been much better if he'd just slowed his freaking circling camera down! And then, as the scene begins to reach emotional intensity, Batman just disappears into the shadow. "No!, the movie says "we need to hurry you to the next piece of contrived dialog to move this plot forward!" I understand the notion of leaving your audience wanting more, but The Dark Knight is such a busy movie that it's hard to get involved on the emotional level.
But are movie-goers seeing it for emotional impact? Of course not. The film's adrenaline pace is why it was such a smash. Like a comic-book, you need to flick the page to find out what happens next. There is very little interest for it as an emotional experience, which explains why even fans of the film seem ho-hum on its re-release (I didn't even much care for it, but still found it essential to see on the big screen again). It hijacks a comic book's panel-to-panel energy, but robs them of their wonder and spirit.
For the most part, I like the two latest Batman movies. The second time around, since I knew what it was and was not, I was able to just enjoy the experience more (an empty theater certainly helped matters), but they still leave a lot to be desired and IMO are in no way 'definitive' takes on the Batman canon.
And, Jim, don't apologize for bringing this film up so often. Whether we like it or not, this is an important film, a pop culture sensation and an interesting consolidation of the way Hollywood tells stories in the 00s. I'd find it interesting to go even deeper with analyzing the film's aesthetic, not merely what's wrong with individual shots but even whole scenes.
Just, for example, take the scene where Gordon arrests Marone. It NEVER introduces the space to us (to my memory, please correct me if I am wrong), and shows us the gangsters sitting at tables in individual shots. Then, suddenly, it cuts to a space away from the table where the gangsters are seated and shows us the entrance to the room. Now, for all we as an audience know, this shot could be a new SCENE beginning. But no, Gordon walks through, and arrests the lot of 'em. I found this scene disorienting, and if he'd only slowed down the film's breakneck pacing, established the space of the restaurant in master shots, I think the scene would have been infinitely more effective (and certainly not distracting).
And then there's that horrendous nightclub scene...
Jim,
I've really appreciated your entries on the school bus shot. There's one point in your analysis that I have a problem with, though, and it's why I disagree with your conclusion that the shot is bad: you use as your frame of reference a theoretical shot that isn't in the film. What Nolan and his crew show us in the shot seems to me to be sufficient to satisfy the requirements that the rest of movie make on the shot. An argument that some alternate shot would be "better" is really interesting, and I'm glad you point out the fact that the school bus shot avoids grounding itself explicitly in the previous scene. But comparison with a nonexistent shot doesn't convince me at all that the actual shot lacks anything.
The shot, as it exists, answers the dangling question from the opening sequence (how is the Joker going to get away unnoticed?). Am I missing something in the bank interior that doesn't get resolved, and needs to be?
The falling sequence is another beast entirely: the setup gives us this question of how the two are going to survive the fall, and nothing about the sequence really answers that question (the cape doesn't seem to slow them at all, and they land on the car with enough force to crumple it). But what's left unanswered after the school bus shot?
To restate, a bit more clearly:
I agree that the choices Nolan makes deviate from traditional filmmaking. And thanks again, Jim, for drawing my attention to decisions like the school bus shot.
What I don't agree with is WHY Nolan made this sort of decision consistently throughout the film. The only way to answer a question like "Why don't we see the interior of the bank in the school bus shot?" is within the context of the film itself. What seems to be the intended effect in the film, and what was the actual effect within the film?
To that end, I'm inclined to believe that Nolan intended to add uncertainty to moments in which the audience can pretty well anticipate what will happen next. Which I think he accomplished pretty well.
The alternative interpretation is, what, exactly? To consider that Nolan consistently tried to cut corners, and thought he could get away with it? The case could be made, but that's not very interesting within the context of the film.
JE: You may well be right about Nolan's intentions. I puzzled and puzzled about the intentions, too -- which, as Keith Uhlich said, appeared to be a deliberate strategy, though he (and I) think it's a failed one. If indeed Nolan "cut corners" (and I don't pretend to if or why he did), I can only assume it's because he didn't think those corners were important. As you say, in the context of the film, I didn't feel that denying the audience certain spacial cues (orientation of physical relationships between shots in a sequence, or even within a single shot) accomplished anything other than to sap the movie of tension and suspense. It felt very choppy to me, despite occasional moments of visual grandeur (mostly helicopter shots of cityscapes).
The more I see the Dark Knight, and read about it (including your posts, Jim), the more I feel like Nolan layered a very specific strategy on top of a well-constructed movie. I read the script, and compared that to the film, and saw a number of small moments that had been chopped off by sound design (the first half of the TV anchor's lead-in to the first Joker video), camera movements (Gordon's reaction to hearing Dent mention Ramirez as corrupt), or editing (the scripted scene of the Joker leaving after the Rachel/Batman fall was deleted entirely). So I think Nolan absolutely "cut corners", the way Goddard just started chopping the boring bits out of Breathless. I think he took any moment we could think our way past and removed it. Why?
Well, he also inserted meaningless shots. Isn't that weird? There's a scene where Rachel's in the MCU, on the phone with Harvey, and cops are milling around, and at some point there's a cut to one of the cops in front of her holding a file. For no discernible narrative reason.
But I think these things are deliberate artistic choices, intended to make the pacing and tension of the film paramount. I think that shot in the MCU scene is there purely so he can maintain the rhythm of edits in a scene you might otherwise just film in one long take. (Or you might cut between Rachel and Dent over the phone, but they couldn't because they wanted to preserve the surprise of Dent's circumstances for the next scene.)
One of the reasons this seems clear to me is that whenever Nolan wants to emphasize something he will, paradoxically, hold the camera still and let it roll without cutting. He uses this in one of my favorite shots of the film: the moment when "businessman" Doug Ballard tries and fails to decide to press the detonator on the ferry.
(By the way, that's a masterpiece of physical acting--starts out hardened, and then sort-of collapses in pieces. First the eyes glance up and to the back, as if he's considering the potential consequences of what he's about to do... Head turns slightly in that direction. His lip quivers a little, as his resolve weakens. I swear he sweats on cue. Then he looks down, seeming to shrink imperceptibly, and, defeated, replaces the detonator. What's going on in that man's head is a microcosm of the rest of the movie.)
A companion to this thesis is my notion that Nolan deliberately makes the action as unsatisfying as he can get away with, in order to express one of the central ideas in the movie, that violence and vigilantism is not, in the end, a viable solution to the problem of crime. The action climax of the movie is over-the-top and unsatisfying because the real point, the actual important part, is not whether Batman can beat Joker in a fistfight but whether Harvey Dent will decide to enforce the consequences of the "deal with the devil" Dent, Gordon, and Batman have made by compromising their values to fight the mob, ie., the moral and emotional climax.
I think that idea gets at one of the crucial distinction between "fans" of the Dark Knight and what you've been talking about, Jim. You go on and on to try and claim or prove that The Dark Knight is a "middling" action movie, while they go, "But the ideas in it are great!", and I think both sides are missing the crucial interpretation of how those two parts of the film intersect.
There is no inherent fallacy to Jim’s argument, or the way he puts it forward. How do you tell a story in the medium of film? David Mamet has the best answer: “Through the juxtaposition of uninflected images.” The building blocks of a movie are the shots themselves. In, and of, themselves, they have to make sense. They have to be coherent with regard to what they are trying to achieve as shots, and what they are building as a whole, i.e. the film entire. One way to see why a sequence does not work, the way many an academic does in their lectures every day, is to look at the way the shots are constructed. By giving en example from the first action sequence, the incoherence is made clear – and it applies to the whole movie. This does not have anything to do with the way Nolan is trying to mimic his own creation (The Joker) in a metatextual way (everything in The Dark Knight is far too literal), it’s sloppy editing that calls attention to itself.
Jim took a similar look at one of the earlier scenes in The Happening this summer, too. It involves Mark Wahlberg talking to a misfit student, and the way that scene is constructed is also somewhat perfunctory, if not totally arbitrary. It’s a thorny scene, and analysing why it is so does not detract from a macro-review.
I don't understand why it's OK to analyse films one appreciates on a shot-by-shot basis, but fallacious when that technique is applied to less fulfilling fare.
Ali Arikan--
The problem I have with Jim's analysis si that he, like you, seems to pick a shot apart, shot-by-shot, and say "look at how incoherent this is," without explaining to those of us who followed it without a problem why we should be finding it incoherent.
JE: That's the key misconception here. I'm trying to show what I think is lacking in the shot, and use that as an example of what I find lacking in the film as a whole. I'm not saying ANYONE else should find it incoherent -- especially if you didn't already. And I didn't even say this particular shot was incoherent. It's not. You actually know exactly where all the elements are in relationship to everything else. I'm saying it's one particular moment (and I mentioned many others) that left me feeling dissatisfied because it felt clipped, diminished in scale. I never said YOU (or anyone else) is obligated to feel that way. If the composition doesn't bother you, it doesn't bother you. But don't tell me it doesn't bother ME, or that the actual observations I made are invalid because they're not. They're right there on the screen.
I've noticed you've been debating about this for a long time, and are probably tired of it, but I thought I'd chime in. As we all know, movies are hard to make, and stuff gets messy, especially in gigantic big budget pictures. I don't see what's so problematic about The Dark Knight being a flawed film. It's still good (I would even argue that it's very good!) Really, there are plenty of very good movies around that are even more flawed than The Dark Knight. Although it may deserve more critical attention because of its popularity, I don't think it deserves a burning at the stake. The level of perfection you are seeking seems more based on the standards set by the movie's fans, as opposed to the standards set by the movie itself, a stance that isn't exactly fair to the film makers who you so unfairly claim lack "an eye for the camera's optimal movement and location." And you make the claim so non-chalantly as well, a claim which might be one of the worst insults to fling at an important film maker like Nolan, as though you have that eye, and should have been given the multi-million dollar budget to make a better film. Well, I'd like to see you try- The Dark Knight was an impressive achievement, flaws and all.
JE: I don't see what's so problematic about it being acknowledged a flawed film, either! Is that such a controversial or insupportable assertion? Honest, Joe, I'm not trying to burn it at the stake. I've said again and again that I enjoyed parts of it but didn't find it fulfilling -- or as weighty/meaningful as its tone indicates it wants to be. I'm showing specific examples of directorial decisions I think were less than inspired -- maybe sloppy, maybe deliberate. I could have just said the picture was "flawed" and left it as vague as that, but I respect the movie(s) enough to believe that criticisms should be specific. And its greatest flaw, I think, is Nolan's direction, which I would characterize as rather haphazard. I'm trying to show why I feel that way, by actually looking at how the film is directed! Shouldn't be anything terribly novel about that.
Nolan cutting corners...perhaps...the more likely reason is that he avoided certain cues deliberately, so the film itself would not follow the standard action movie routine. Sure "Iron Man" was fun, but it followed the layout point-by-point. I think Nolan's intentions and inclinations, and I will be brave enough to make a presumption, were to steer as far away from your typical action movie hyper stylized standard shots and sequences. There's very little deep focus used in the film. Like Kurosawa's technique used in "Seven Samurai" it gives it a very distinct feeling. The shot you described...seeing the bus pull out with the bank teller in the background would have meant a completely different style of shot be executed than what we actually see in the film. Now, it might be that he so desperately wanted to stay away from those moments that at times he shot himself in the foot by pulling away too much. I'm sure if you asked him he'd point out several mistakes he made in the film, every film is a learning process, and next time (you hope) those ideas will become clearer. It took David Lynch how many years to finally hit his target with "Mulholland Drive", but on the other hand Shyamalan keeps trying to recreate film language and falls further and further away.
JE: Yes, if Nolan was trying to undercut what he thought were otherwise predictable action-movie cliches, that might explain his strategy. But did he avoid them? To me it just looked like he didn't know how to make them work convincingly for the film. Did his approach make the movie a more interesting, powerful or engaging experience? I don't believe so, and that's what I've laboring to illustrate with specifics. BTW, I watched Shyamalan's "Unbreakable" the other night and it was a blast! Lots of long, intricate, smartly composed takes that did exciting and playful things with perspective, frames, reflections, patterns -- created suspense and captured unusual ways of looking at the world. What the hell happened in "Lady in the Water" and "The Happening"? He seems to have forgotten everything he once understood about how to make a movie that's engaging to watch. I want to write more about how good I thought "Unbreakable" was -- and use some images to illustrate exactly why.
You're just getting around to "Unbreakable"?! Love that movie. My favorite of his. I remember him saying that as he was writing he finally hit the tone he wanted with the scene where Willis talks to the priest and went back and rewrote around that tone. With "Lady" and "Happening" he never seemed to find that tone...in fact, the tone of both of those films almost feels like watered down landscapes of the much richer "Unbreakable" and even "The Village" ... until the third act which devolved closer to what he's churning out now.
JE: I'd seen it when it was first released, but I forgot how enjoyable and well put-together it was. You're right on about the tone. And several other people have told me it's their favorite of his, too. May be mine now, too.
Ryan Kelly says: "And, Jim, don't apologize for bringing this film up so often."
I agree...but if you really start in on "Paul Blart: Mall Cop", there'll be hell to pay.
Jim E says: "I want to write more about how good I thought "Unbreakable" was -- and use some images to illustrate exactly why."
I'd love to see this. I, too, think "Unbreakable" is a blast, and worthy of careful viewing.
Okay, Jim, I think your problem with TDK has finally sunk in for me. You're saying that it doesn't really matter whether Nolan was trying to present Gotham as chaotic, because the decisions he made were decisions of narrative voice. Which is just as likely to give the impression of an orderly Gotham filmed by an unstable person. Meanwhile, these decisions about presentation actually reduced the amount of actual chaos the audience sees. Am I close?
Funny, I just watched "Unbreakable" again the other night too, and was much more impressed than I remembered.
JE: Thanks, Steve. Here's an example from the most recent episode of... "Top Chef"! A talented contestant was trying to explain the thinking that went into his dish. A judge replied that he was not listening to the actual criticisms: Of course he INTENDED to make a fabulous dish, but the veal was overcooked, the greens were wilted, the cheese was gratuitous... So, yes, Nolan's intentions may have been to convey a general sense of chaos throughout the film, but where did he achieve it and how did he go about it and to what effect? I felt, as you perfectly describe it, that "these decisions about presentation actually reduced the amount of actual chaos the audience sees."
I never got the feeling that Gotham was a town about to burst wide open. I didn't feel that panic in the streets -- in part because the city seems almost uninhabited, the population cropped out of Nolan's frames. Wider angles and more action around the edges (extras, anyone?) might have conveyed a sense of bustling, bristling chaos if that's what he was after. Even in a packed bar or a pair of full passenger ferries, the crowds in the film are remarkably still and orderly. I got the impression that every set-up was tightly controlled (where are the spectators at Commissioner Loeb's memorial?), which didn't create a sense of "chaos" or claustrophobia for me. There's some intentional or unintentional disorientation in spatial relationships (it's a bad sign if you stop to wonder), but not in the sense of being immersed in a situation that's about to fly out of control. Even when the hospital blows up, the exploding building and the evacuees are discretely isolated in separate shots. For safety reasons, perhaps. But that's a limitation that should have been solved by the director and the effects folks.
Jim--
I suppose maybe my problem is with the terminology people use to discuss the film. If I dislike something about a movie that I think is probably fairly particular to me, I tend to avoid calling it "bad" or "flawed". I have some innate dislike for Michael Douglas, but I don't think that means any given movie he's in is bad or flawed simply because I don't want to see it. I'd rather stick my left hand in a furnace than watch Mamma Mia! but I can't say it's a bad movie just because I find ABBA horrendous. Obviously these are very "Macro" criticisms, but I dunno--I can't help but think there are some flaws and problems with movies that are just plain wrong and to fail to recognize them is a failing as a viewer, while there are others that are simply based on personal tastes or characteristics.
Unbreakable is indeed an amazing film, one of the best superhero movies ever made. I'd love to see you talk about it, Jim.
Some parts you might want to consider:
The motif of frames within frames.
The use of bright, saturated colors only at specific points within otherwise almost monochromatic (blue) shots.
The way he gets very powerful moments out of fundamental cinematographic principles. For example, standard rules state the subject is centered or otherwise made primary in the framing of the shot. A simply tracking movement adds depth and poignancy to Willis's speech telling Elijah that he's nobody special, just an ordinary man, by gradually removing him from the focus of the shot and then the off-screen entirely.
The score, which comes up with a simple, iconic melody and then uses it to express thematically when Willis moves closer toward his true nature as a hero.
The extremely quiet sound design.
I'm sure you can think of plenty more. I've enjoyed most of Shyamalan's movies (in fact, I think The Village is underrated), but Unbreakable is definitely the most complete, the most assured, and the most exciting.
So the poison has been drained? What needs saying has been said and mis-said and re-contextualized and said right and I understand so probably a lot of other people do too. So on to celebrating cinema! What makes it great! Films that otherwise may not get mentioned can be mentioned instead of the 2nd highest grossing film of all time. Time to let the light in and remember why we debate endlessly on this topic: love, art, cinema, life!
What needs saying has been said and mis-said and re-contextualized and said right and I understand so probably a lot of other people do too.
But there's more to it than that. Being such a pop culture sensation and worldwide smash ( nearly a billion dollars in a recession, no less), there's good reason to examine it closely. We could probably agree that this and The Lord of the Rings pictures are the biggest event films of our time, and they are representative of the way Hollywood tells stories. So it's important, in its own way.
The question is, are these decisions part of a firm directorial vision (as some have suggested), or because Nolan was in way over his head? My vote is on the latter, personally. Batman Begins, which has a shorter ASL (1.9 to TDK's approx 2.5), feels less disjointed and more cohesive. There are events in this movie that I didn't believe were taking place on the same planet. Much less the same city. Much less within 5 feet of each other. But that's me.
JE: Beautifully and succinctly put! I felt the same way. And I'm planning to re-watch "Batman Begins" (which I recall enjoying more) in the near future. Got my Netflix Blu-ray copy right here...
Well, at least we all agree on Unbreakable. I'd love to see a scene analysis of that. And your whole series of posts and this discussion here and on my site really have inspired me to do more scene analysis in the future.
Phillip,
I don't really see how Nolan deviated much from "typical action movie hyper stylized standard shots and sequences." As has been happening industry-wide, Nolan is just continuing deeper into the "Intensified Continuity" trend David Bordwell identified some time ago and continues to chronicle. More close-ups and extreme close-ups, quicker editing, more kinetic camera, etc. There's not much on that front to differentiate Dark Knight from the Bourne movies, Quantum of Solace, Once Upon a Time in Mexico or even, to pick a film from a different genre, Australia. The only difference might be that he makes the frame look even muddier and darker.
Obviously, there's nothing inherently "wrong" with this style. I happen to find it difficult to watch, not because I find it confusing or because I get queasy from the non-stop camera blurs (it's hard to even call them "movements") but simply because I find nothing to look at. Cut, blur, cut, cut, swish, cut, slash, cut, blur, cut, whoosh, cut, cut.
It's a creative choice, not incompetence. And it's one that either a lot of people like or that at least has proven marketable and cost effective enough to increasingly become normative.
I like to stare. I like to linger on an image. I like to see bodies in motion and in space. That doesn't mean I want to live in a world of Bela Tarr long takes (though they are lovely), but I do want to see... something. Something that was actually there. I get no feel of the tangible, the ontological force that gives photography so much power. That degree to which all films are documentaries (e.g. Casablanca is a documentary about Humphrey Bogart doing things in front of a camera for a few months 'round about 1941 or '42).
And that's nothing more than an expression of taste, not a claim that what Nolan did was "wrong." I'll even go so far as to undercut myself completely by saying that I absolutely love Guy Maddin and his hyper-stylized, quick-cut films. Though I am often frustrated when Maddin offers up a beautiful image and then quickly takes it off-screen, his films give me plenty of visual pleasure. I get none of that from the action scenes in Dark Knight.
I'd just like to throw in with the people praising Unbreakable. Excellent flick--it actually does what many comic books and superhero films have a pretense of doing, showing a real human being discovering he has superpowers, and a purpose for them.
"I never got the feeling that Gotham was a town about to burst wide open."
Have you considered the angle that The Joker is just full of crap, and is attempting to convince himself, more than the populace of Gotham itself, that anyone is capable of committing wholesale murder, given a certain degree of emotional stress or disillusionment?
I don't think the film was ever intending to depict full-on chaos, but merely short bursts of public disorder (such as that large group outside the TV station trying to get at the Wayne Enterprises exec) that would potentially suggest anarchy in a few years' time, given a certain environment of violence and social mistrust. Batman, Gordon, and Dent had pretty much gotten the criminal element in Gotham under control (though not snuffed out entirely), and The Joker was pretty much the active, motivating force for a series of moral conflicts for a variety of people.
What's boiling under the surface in any given society doesn't have to be displayed in overt fashion (such as public riots) to be present, and if a series of violent acts are being committed over a short period of time, some folks might just stay off the streets for their own protection.
Anyways, these aren't necessarily fully-formed thoughts here...just some ideas to bounce around.
"It's a creative choice, not incompetence."
And what you said in this post, Chris, is entirely reasonable, and understandable. For people like me, though, while there are scenes in the film where I'd probably prefer a little more visual information (the quick underground parking lot sequence, and the quick Joker/Batman/goons fight during the party, where motion blur is definitely, and deliberately, in effect), I really don't take issue with any of the other set pieces in the film. On my Blu-ray of the movie, to me, the tunnel chase is extremely (spatially) coherent, and has plenty of physical weight to its action. The same goes for the busy skyscraper sequence, where I feel everything is nicely articulated (though it's, without question, compromised somewhat in the more claustrophobic 2.40:1 DVD/regular theatrical version). There are so many images from that film burned into my brain, that clearly they occupied the screen long enough to leave a lasting impression on me.
All that said, I do very much enjoy various art films that linger on images, and allow you to soak them in, and nicely evoke atmosphere. But in some cases, I don't feel they have a compelling enough narrative to hold up well to repeat viewings. I watched, for instance, Tarkovsky's "Ivan's Childhood" again the other day, and while I found it to have glorious cinematography, and very carefully judged, "artistic" compositions, I didn't find any of the characters in the film to be of particular interest, so overall, it left me rather cold...and bored.
I'm kind of wondering how I'm going to feel when I get around to your particular favourite, Wendy and Lucy, as I've noticed folks strongly on both sides of the critical divide. Heck, you were even instantly on the defensive about it in your review, suggesting you'd read, or heard, a few negative comments about it already. What I imagine will happen is that I'll admire it more than I "enjoy" it, and I'll either find it gently engrossing or somewhat tedious. But if it hits me emotionally in a similarly strong way to the very atmospheric Let The Right One In, I'll grab the DVD in a second, as I plan to do with the latter. I've always found Michelle Williams to be a warm, generous actress (I thought she did fine work in Kaufman's Synecdoche, New York), and I certainly won't be approaching the film with an adversarial tone, as more casual moviegoers might. I'm open to anything, whether it be a quiet, leisurely stroll in the wilderness, or a big-budget spectacular that occasionally moves a little faster than it needs to.
Cheers.
"I'd just like to throw in with the people praising Unbreakable."
Haven't seen it in years, but it's probably my favourite Shyamalan film (mind you, that and Sixth Sense were the only ones I genuinely liked). That said, it'd be pretty hard to argue that the words "pretentious" or "ponderous" couldn't be applied to that movie as much as any other superhero or action film in existence. The director's always thought quite a lot of himself, it seems.
Beautifully and succinctly put!
Are you picking on me, Jim? I didn't mean to write an encyclopedia the other day, it just kinda worked out that way. But from someone who often puts things beautifully and succinctly, that's high praise.
Be sure to chime in with your thoughts on Begins and how it holds up.
JE: I was totally sincere!
Okay, I'll be upset with myself if I don't take one last shot at explaining why I admire Nolan's directorial choices. So here goes.
The central thing here, I think, is whether the framing and editing have anything to add to the meaning of the film, or if they're just a bunch of loud, rhythmic, MTV-generation fluff. It certainly _seems_ like fluff, because Nolan and his crew pretty frequently skip the shots that could show us the most information, and withhold visual connections between clearly-connected shots. It happens over and over: from the school-bus shot, to the missing details of the capture of the Scarecrow and the Joker's confrontation with Gamble, to the lack of setup for the restaurant arrests and the funeral. So what could this pattern possibly add?
Well, it does two things: first, it pulls the point-of-view for the film drastically inward. Even while the helicopter shots establish the stakes of the story as city-wide, the choice to effectively go from extreme long shot to extreme closeup makes the action here entirely personal. Even as the Joker's actions focus on manipulating ordinary citizens to perform violent acts on one another, the directorial choices keep reminding us that this is a film about the actions of individuals, and not about the madness of crowds.
The other thing it does, and it's related to the first, is that it highlights the disconnection from society of its major characters, and underscores the chaos implicit in being disconnected from society. It makes it a bit more easy to see that there are significant similarities between the Joker and Batman, and makes a bit more dubious the idea of creating order through lawless means.
JE: Thank you, Steve. Those are things I will keep in mind next time I watch the movie! (I have to go back and revisit "Batman Begins" now that my Blu-ray technical glitch has been fixed.)