We've been discussing (with regard to "In the Cut Part I: Shots in the Dark (Knight)" what kind of film grammar Christopher Nolan was using (it's traditional narrative continuity editing -- most of the time). One of my key questions was: Is it, "as the filmmakers have said, more concerned with realism -- photographing real objects, including actors and miniatures, in real space? We can see how it does what it does. The question is: What's the result? How do these stylistic choices enhance or diminish the impact of the movie?"
Just came across this 2005 interview with Nolan (by Sean Axmaker, for GreenCine), talking about his approach to reviving the Batman movie franchise. In a word? Realism, according to Nolan:
For me, the exciting opportunity was that you had a studio with this phenomenal character, wanting to re-introduce the character to the big screen and looking for a fresh way to do it. I felt I had never seen a superhero story tackled with a real degree of reality, of seriousness, in a way, and Batman, to me, as the most mortal, the most ordinary in terms of abilities, of superheroes -- he has no super powers -- he's the natural choice for trying to tell a superhero story in a realistic manner. I just felt that would be something I've never seen before and something that would be really fun and exciting to do. [...]
It presents enormous physical challenges for the crew, particularly because I insisted on doing things for real rather than employing visual effects, so there was a tremendous amount of stunt work and so forth. And I insisted on doing everything main unit, not using any second unit action crews. We wanted the whole film to have a consistency that applied to the action set pieces as well as to the character scenes.
Part II of "In the Cut" began with this quote from David Bordwell, which I think presents essential follow-up questions and considerations:
Realism, as usual, is simply a fig leaf for doing what you want. Virtually any technique can be justified as realistic according to some conception of what's important in the scene. If you shoot the action cogently, with all the moves evident, that's realistic because it shows you what's 'really' happening. If you shoot it awkwardly, that presentation is 'realistically' reflecting what a participant perceives or feels. If you shoot it as 'chaos'... -- well, action feels chaotic when you're in it, right? Forget the realist alibi. What do you want your sequence to do to the viewer?
And there's the heart of the matter: Do the film's techniques "make the chase more exciting, or just more confusing?" We can agree on what the film shows, but viewers have a range of opinions on how it affects them...
19 Comments
In a way I think it boils down to personal taste. Is it an over-generalization to suggest that younger audiences raised with quicker cutting, more chaotic action seem to like it than those who grew up with movies like Bullitt?
Personally, I think judiciously used chaos can be effective, but I love the satisfaction and thrill of an action sequence that is clearly presented with a definite sense of geography and realism.
I guess I interpret the "realism" Nolan described as being applied in his BATMAN films in the production design, costume design, and plot points more than in framing and editing and such. The scripts provided "realism" in the how and why for things like the Batmobile (a military vehicle prototype), the Batman costume (same), and Batman's physical abilities (ninja training shown in the narrative). The baddies are grounded as well because of costuming. The Scarecrow doesn't look like a literal scarecrow as he does in the comics (an outlandish design that works great in comics because of the artistic leeway that the reader gives to things that are drawn), and his mask is less about being costumed than it is about instilling fear in a person whom he's drugged. The Joker is portrayed in a similar "realistic" light, especially when you compare how past live action iterations (the TV show, Burton's Batman) attempted to make him look as outlandish as the drawn character. Burton's film uses a lot of the comic book Joker props and iconography such as Joker logos on vehicles (as though the Joker had hired a graphic designer!), guns that have a "Bang" flag, the buzzer that electrocutes the exec, or the boxing glove on an accordion arm out to smash the TV (if I remember the scene correctly!). Yeah, the Nolan films are still outlandish, but I think that the things I describe above bring them closer to James Bond outlandishness than to the outlandishness of most superhero adaptations (a claim which so describes the relative nature of "realism"!)
Yes, but as he says, he places great importance on setting the movies in a photorealistic world (there's no mistaking that Gotham IS Chicago!), as opposed to the Anton Furst-designed fantasy Gotham of Tim Burton's Batman movies -- or whatever you'd call the look/sensibility of the Joel Schumacher ones (window-dressing style?).
To your point: "We wanted the whole film to have a consistency that applied to the action set pieces as well as to the character scenes." That's where things really break down because Nolan just set the expectation that his action sequences would also be photorealistic when, as you've pointed out in your video essay, they were anything but. I guess I just see your primary argument built around the formalist theories of action sequence design/construction (and how shoddy Nolan's work is when compared to the good stuff) to be much more compelling than the notion of the sequences working against Nolan's attempt at conveying "realism." As you state in your closing here, "And there's the heart of the matter: Do the film's techniques 'make the chase more exciting, or just more confusing?'" If this is an argument about "realism," then shouldn't you ask "Do the film's techniques make the chase more realistic?" To be clear, I'm really advocating in this comment that a focus on "realism" is just a weaker part of your argument, that you've only loosely connected it to the idea that shoddy work does not equal "realism," and that it seems like the only reason to even go there was to combat against the dismissive people who would claim "realism" in a weak counterargument to your essay. I think that the fact that Nolan's claims of "realism" could be just as easily (I'd argue more easily) be applied to other aspects of the film just weakens the the angle you're taking here even more. Perhaps I'm just not the audience for this angle because I found the approach you took on breaking down Nolan's lack of technique to be completely damning.
He does place great importance on the world through the numerous helicopter shots of the city, but how does that apply to his editing/framing technique of the action scenes? This is in no way a defense of those said techniques--but I think Jim would make a stronger argument comparing the fight scenes with Kill Bill or Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.
The analysis is a great example of dissection a film comparison, but to try to link Nolan's attempts at realism with his sloppy editing is a little bit contrived. As mentioned, Kill Bill is a fine piece of editing with clearly framed and choreographed and framed shots, but does that mean the film realistic in terms of plot?
Where this is leading to is how are we interpreting the term "realism?" Does it look real? Or is it believable? For me, despite TDK's editing and framing flaws, there's still an air of excitement from watching a truck ACTUALLY flip over, rather than a computer image of a truck.
I can point out sloppy editing in various Scorsese films (although not to the extent that Jim has done with TDK) but that doesn't change my perception of their overall impact or desired effect of the director. I think it would be worth arguing why the Nolan's Batman films are representative of realistic film-making, just as much as dissecting the techniques that are executed as well as could have been done.
Just to clarify: I'm not trying to "link Nolan's attempts at realism with his sloppy editing" -- just showing that he has clearly stated (as if it wasn't obvious from the films themselves) that he takes a primarily realistic approach to his Batman movies. (Some have claimed otherwise, and I wanted to clear up some misconceptions I've seen in comments. Some have said, for example, that the action scenes were done by the second unit -- and I'm not sure they know what that means, even when it is. Some have gone so far as to say they see the character of Batman as one with supernatural superpowers, when the whole concept of Batman has always been that he doesn't. Where do they get these ideas?) The next step, of course, is to examine what that means -- as David Bordwell does in that quote. "Realism" can mean many different things when it comes to actual techniques or styles. The question to ask, then, is: What does the movie want to do to the viewer? A comparison of fight scenes in "Batman Begins" and "TDK" with those in "Kill Bill" and "CT,HD" might indeed be illuminating.
"Supernatural" has a certain connotation, I guess (although you've used it to describe the sci-fi elements in "The Prestige"), Batman could perhaps more correctly be described as super-possible, or super-plausable, or as a super-hero. Anyway, he does things that people can't do. Sometimes he seems to be in two places at once. When he drops off the top of a winding ramp in a garage and lands exactly where he wants to (onto Scarecrow's van) some three or four floors down, he's acting just as impossibly as the characters in Crouching Tiger or Hero (would you describe them as supernatural?). That Nolan makes it visually convincing (which is what I think he was talking about) doesn't make it "realistic."
Just to clarify, which of Nolan's statements are you taking issue with?
1) "I felt I had never seen a superhero story tackled with a real degree of reality, of seriousness, in a way..."
2) "... Batman, to me, as the most mortal, the most ordinary in terms of abilities, of superheroes -- he has no super powers..."
3) "he's the natural choice for trying to tell a superhero story in a realistic manner..."
4) All of the above?
5) None of the above?
Exactly. Also the psychological realism, an attempt to explain why a man would spend his life the way Bruce Wayne chooses to (Batman Begins, no matter what one might think of it as an action picture or thriller, is pretty complete as a characters study).
What is the exact definition of realism? Is there a metric to gage realism?
Is a movie like The Exorcist less realistic than The Dark Knight? I don't mean to be rhetorical with these questions. I think The Exorcist is a fairly realistic movie given that there are people who genuinely do believe in demon possessions.
I don't think there is any one definition -- that's the subject of the Bordwell quotation. Nolan gives his, and it has to do with photorealism: shooting on real locations with real vehicles and not using fantastical sets (like the much more stylized Tim Burton Batman movies) or cartoony CGI. "Realism," as a style, doesn't necessarily have anything to do with plausibility. Most of "The Exorcist" is indeed shot in a realistic style, on actual locations in and around Georgetown. You could argue that maybe Friedkin pushes things a bit with the expressionistic lighting and fog when Father Merrin arrives, for example, but the audience is definitely meant to feel the story takes place in the real world, and not a fantasy land. Heck, the Final Stairway is a famous tourist attraction now!
I think people misconstrue what Nolan has said in general on this topic and take "realism" (a word Nolan himself never uses) far too literally.
He uses the words "degree of reality" and "realistic manner," which are both very different statements to straight-up "realism." I've always taken it to mean what a lot of commenters above have said.
I think basically his stated purpose was always to have extraordinary things taking place in a reasonably grounded-feeling ordinary setting. I think people looking for realism down to the last detail are missing the point of his mission statement, as it were.
I hope this doesn't muddy the waters, but it discusses what imprecise (but also resonant) terms like "realistic," "reality" and "realism" can be with regard to movies (or any art form): http://j.mp/n1CwR5
This looks interesting. I will give it a read. Thanks for the response!
Jim, I believe that with "realism" Nolan was refering more to the "plausability" of the events that are depicted in the movies than to an actual "realistic visual style" in which they are depicted cinematographically.
Or at least that's how I understand the "realism" of the Nolan Batman movies. Stylistically the films are no more "real" than any of the old 70-80s Superman movies. But the events depicted are indeed more "real" (plausible) than having the man of steel flying around the globe and saving the day.
That said, compared to the Tim Burton films, stylistically, they do feel closer to "reality" as we perceived it, at least when not under the influence.
As far as the idea of "realism" goes, as Mr. Emerson notes, it is indeed extremely fraught with argument. However, I find Roman Jakobson's discussion of the matter in his essay, "On Realism and Art," a good yardstick. It can be found here: .
In both "Memento" and "The Prestige", two excellent films IMO, Nolan developed an editing style somewhat similar to the works of Nicolas Roeg, in which fragments might be used in a way that was a little off from a continuity perspective but made a certain emotional sense, and in many ways enhanced the impact of what we were seeing.
In the chase and fight sequences in "The Dark Knight", it's not just that the editing is rapid, it's that very often the physical momentum of the scene changes WITHIN that rapid editing. Is this an extremely subtle way in which Nolan is suggesting an off-kilter world? (One perhaps heavily influenced by the Joker?) Or is it, as I believe, simply semi-incoherent storytelling? If you believe it's the former, then the question still has to be asked whether or not it works effectively.
Nolan said "...particularly because I insisted on doing things for real rather than employing visual effects..." This is an incredibly unfair thing for him to say. Unfair because some of my friends worked very hard for over a year on the visual effects for The Dark Knight. There were close to 900 visual effects shots in that film, 8 companies that I know of and at least 300 visual effects artists. Look at the credits on IMDB and see how the visual effects crew outnumbers everybody on that film. I wish he'd stop saying that.
He also said...
"I like to talk about these films as having an operatic quality or being on a grand scale and a bit removed from the rhythms of real life, no matter how realistic we try to make the scenes themselves. In [the interrogation] scene, for instance, we went for the gritty realism in the textures of it, but it is a heightened reality. We’re trying to work on a more universal scale. If you get that right, people are going to be able to bring a wide variety of interpretations to it depending on who they are."
http://herocomplex.latimes.com/2008/10/27/christopher-nol/
I figure a director could do just about anything in the name of heightened reality.
I find this quote interesting for another reason; it seems Nolan is happy with opening his films up for the individual interpretations of the audience members, rather than pointing them too far in one direction or another (the question concerned the political interpretations of the press).
Leave a comment