Remember all those times I challenged people to try to make logical sense of the action sequences in The Dark Knight? Jim Emerson is taking a shot.

Hell yeah! And so, the backlash begins (or continues, depending on which forums and critics you read). Now the next step is for someone to come along and do the same thing for the ENTIRE film, and without apologizing for their opinions as Emerson does ("at least he held back on the CGI"). I want to make a video myself, but I'm still struggling on where to even begin. Even with all my ranting, I still haven't decided whether Nolan's hackery is more prominent at the execution level or at the conceptual level. One thing I can say with more confidence: anyone who fails to accept the fakery of his work will get the film they deserve next summer; one giant pile of garbage...pretentious garbage to be exact.

Nolan's good with concepts. He's a journeyman at best when it comes to execution, but he's got some cool ideas. I can't dispute that.

It's just a huge pain in the ass to watch this movie and enjoy it because it's Batman doing some cool shit, but also be unable to ignore how much better it could have been if they'd just made the movie differently.

As for backlash, Emerson has pretty much held his opinions from square one. In fact, his was one of the earliest prominent voices I can recall (aside from David Denby and maybe a few others) to have a negative opinion of the film. It's not as though his issues with the visual style of TDK sprang up in reaction to the wave of positivity that followed its debut, though he has spoken subsequently on the topic of polarized fan behavior.

I still think TDK is awesome. It's not the holy grail by which some have attributed it to, but I still like it. Now I wish this guy would deconstruct the sequence of Jason Bourne chasing and fighting Desh through Morocco in the Bourne Ultimatum. If he has all that to say on that one TDK sequence, I would imagine he would have a field day with Bourne.

I tried something similar with a clip from Gone in 60 Seconds and got maybe 30 seconds into it. It's a tedious business, especially if you don't really like the movie you're attempting to pick apart. I admire Emerson's dedication.

I'd personally love to hear him tear apart the wohle of Bourne Supremacy, I can't think of any other films that gave me more of a headache thne that film.

Honestly, as much of a field day people can have deconstructing 'The Dark Knight', to me it all comes off as a reaction to its initial praise rather than amounting to anything substantial. If you liked the film before you watched the video, you probably still liked it, and if you didn't like the film or had issue with it in the slightest, then you only confirmed your own feelings. My intuition tells me that the only purpose this thread will serve for most people is indifferent technical cock-swaggering; it merely re-exposes the now very familiar gap between people who enjoy the film, and those who remain skeptical about its accolades.


Phil.Spires. I am not criticizing Emerson in the slightest. His consistency makes his arguments and approach appear earnest, and as Kenny said, his dedication is laudable. I guess my feelings relate to whether or not it's a criticism worthy of meditation in terms of the overall impact of the film. I think the scene worked well on an emotional level, and continues to work well each time the film is viewed, so I personally I find Emerson's admittedly well-thought critique to be little more than technically significant.

But Even Flow, lots of poorly crafted TV shows work on an emotional level, for an infinite number of reasons. Craftsmanship is one of the most important differences between Film and Television, or at least it's supposed to be. In fact, isn't the entire point of Film that it should be held to a higher standard than straight emotional impact? Also significant is exactly how the director achieves the emotion. Emerson has now shown you precisely how and why Nolan's film-making is not competent, yet you still accept it as good. Here's what your reaction reminds me of: Jim Carrey realizes his life is a lie in The Truman Show, but he doesn't care because his wife's hot, and what the hell, it's fun.

1.) The Dark Knight is far more technically proficient than nearly any television show short of Band of Brothers. However, I'd say it's a worthy additional point to say that TV has been enjoying a golden age, while film has of recent not. Some films barely contain as many memorable moments as one episode of 'Mad Men'. The comparison is no longer as sharp a tool as derision as it may have once been.

2.) Nolan's technical proficiency (or more to the point, his editor) is dissected in the article using one sequence - not a wholesale condemnation of his film, nor Nolan's entire film-making process. You're taking a simple A-to-B step all the way to 'Z'.

3.) The Dark Knight is a crime film, and an action thriller. Suffice to say, part of its main objective is to provide rousing entertainment with bravura. I don't see why it is to be criticized for essentially fulfilling the goal of providing entertainment. Christopher Nolan's talents for film-making are not a 'lie', and The Dark Knight essentially goes to places very few mainstream films want to go, and does so with undeniable economy. There are some missteps, but the sheer number of things the film gets right is phenomenal. And, as Emerson himself noted, Nolan's unwillingness to film most of his action sequences in CGI arguably gives his scenes an enviable degree of verisimilitude that is lacking in a lot of action/adventure films. Who cares if a scene is well-filmed if most of what we are seeing doesn't even exist on-screen? Imagine how poor of a film 'Raiders of the Last Ark' would be with CGI replacing some of the more daring, breath-taking stunts.


My main point is underscored by your response - people who disliked The Dark Knight originally can attach themselves to Emerson's criticism and feel vindication and, yet again, those who enjoy the film will continue to enjoy it. Of any poster on this forum, you fit the former description to a 'T'.

Random illustration of my point: I watched The Thing the other night, and while yes, it is a victim of poor storytelling in some regards (there is literally NO build-up), hell if it isn't effective in a visceral fashion. The Dark Knight, even counting its warts, is a viscerally powerful film experience. Whether or not that is 'valid' to you is essentially (GOD I HATE THIS WORD BUT HERE GOES) subjective; I enjoy the film without hesitation. Asking for a film without flaws is seeking a holy grail that does not exist, and I don't see a single film from the last decade which juggles action and emotion on such a grand scale and in such memorable fashion as Nolan's film, excepting maybe the seminal City of God.

Can we just have one ultimate Nolan thread so MGamesCook and whoever chooses to disagree can debate endlessly on the subject instead of the being in every other thread?

Sure, let's make it this one.

But the technique is the movie.

Here's what bugs me, as an apparently rare person who likes the movie, but is also very troubled by several aspects of it.

I prefer to understand a movie because of what it is, rather than in spite of it. Nolan isn't alone in making movies that resist visual coherence. He's a member of a whole generation of filmmakers who prefer to confuse the eye, to make it look like something really crazy is happening, when it's much more powerful and direct simply to give people an unimpeded look at what's going on.

Look at great action movies like Raiders of the Lost Ark or Police Story. There is never a moment of confusion for confusion's sake. The visuals are tight, clear, and punchy. There's always a sense of the space and everything that it contains, and the scenes are that much more suspenseful (and, in the case of fights, painful) because of it. You never find yourself understanding the scenes only in the global sense (they're driving, one guy has a bazooka, etc.)
or reconstructing meaning after the fact (well, there was shooting and lots of running around, those guys are down, so here's what must have happened).

I fully realize that it's possible to make global/reconstructive sense of the scene, but the issue still stands that many of the choices made are ambiguous at best--enough so that they're palpable in the overall effect of the sequence, which could have been tightened up by simply following the long-established principles of film grammar.

Again, I'm not saying TDK is bad, but I'm saying there are very clear ways in which it could and should have been better.

There should be plenty of things to ponder about a film after the fact, but whether a vehicle is traveling one way or the other during a chase scene is not one of them.

Well Evenflow, I've finally made a video which conveniently responds to most of what you said in your latest post. It begins with kind of a recap of what I said in that rottentomatoes thread, but the rest of the two parts cover:

- his technical proficiency; or lack thereof, as I see it.
- The argument against his “undeniable sense of economy.”
- a direct reference to the anti-CGI argument.
- An argument that the film is not at all visceral, but more closely resembles a philosophy lecture.

I tried to compose the video mostly out of specific visual examples. If it proves anything, it's that I don't depend on anything Emerson says for my own argument (the action scene in question does not appear in my video). Yes, I understand that film is subjective, and you're right on the money by acknowledging that holy grails don't exist (the major point of my rottentomatoes thread). Therefore, if you still love the movie despite the flaws I point out, that's your own business. But liking a film and calling it good from a filmmaking/directing standpoint are two different things.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5eUGEMmBY4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8o3kqLRA9U

I'll make an allowance for Cook here. I was, at the time, a wee bit dissapointed with the Dark Knight when it was released, for 3 reasons.

1. It wasn't as good as Batman Begins

2. It's bloated by too much artificial tension. It needs to take a breather more than once. But then again this is a problem with many sequels that feel the need to out-do their predecessor at every turn. Spiderman is a good example of this. 2 had the same faults and 3 was unwatchable.

3. Ledger is massively overrated. Neeson was a far better adversary in Begins.

That said, it is still a good film, but it should have been a great one.

To be honest, I didn't find The Dark Knight that great, but this has in part to do with my personal taste.

As for the very intersting shot-by-shot analysis: I am not sure about that. First of all: the production values are ace. The lighting is beautiful and fits the mood. The image quality is 100% film-like, because it IS made on real film, and the color grading seems natural and not digitally cranked by some moron following the flavor of the month. So why all the continuity errors and breaking of long established rules of film grammar?

I'd have to read a comprehensive book on contemporary movie grammar first. I am positive that rules have changed a lot, especially with the new generations which grew up with very different audiovisual media.

For starters: there is a so-called "first rule of editing": never ever splice two shots which are similar looking because the brain will interpret it as some kind of jump or jerky motion as opposed to two distinct angles. How many times has this rule been broken on purpose... precisely because the formerly undesired effect is desired.
The 180 degree rule of course still applies very much to dialog scenes together with careful framing (allow for empty space as well - called "dialog air") - but as soon as the tempo and adrenaline go up, I think different rules apply. Emotion comes a lot into play, perhaps more than spatial/geographical orientation. I really would like to hear the filmmakers and editors first before any harsh criticism.

An easy example of emotional orientation is obvious on Cameron's Titanic: even though the ship is westbound, the two key scenes show her sailing from left to right (on any map this would be eastbound). I never read about that, but I'm sure Cameron opted for the rule of emotionally percieved speed: I read in a book about photography once that the author sent two photographs for entry into a contest. They contained diagonally running steel wires from complex architecture. One of the pics was simply flipped over. One of the pictures was rated much higher by the contest jury members. It was the picture where the wires ran from upper left hand corner to lower right hand corner. This is the form we percieve as dynamic and naturally flowing. It has to do with the way we write and read in our western culture - and Earth's gravity. These two elements are engraved into our minds on an emotional level.

I also object to the comic-book panel argument. In a comic book one can always refer back visually, so the orientation of space always must be coerent. Film runs forward at a constant speed - like music, so obviously different rules must be applied or at least being considered.

There is so much more to visual arts than meets the eye!

It is one thing to break a rule with a specific agenda in mind. It is quite another to break a rule just because. To me, there is no apparent agenda here and the only palpable effect is that it's harder to tell what's going on. It makes receiving the visuals an oppressive, unpleasant experience. I stay involved in spite of the technique, rather than because of it.

For some people, improvising means knowing the tune by heart and departing in ways that are inventive and tasty. For others, improvising means aimlessly noodling around over everything while the tune threatens to trainwreck.

Here's my take on Emerson's video: Nolan cares more about being visually competent for the viewer than about making spatial sense for himself. A good director makes a scene first work for himself, then for the viewer. Ask yourself, why didn't Nolan have a personal problem with the swat truck's illogical jump into the water? Because he doesn't give a shit about gratifying his own sense (or lack thereof) of spatial continuity, so why should the viewer? Emerson points out that, although film is indeed subjective, there are certain objective aspects to craftsmanship that cannot be ignored. It's absolutely astounding to me that someone who loves Kubrick, arguably the master of technical proficiency, could give Nolan the same praise. Kubrick knew how to hold the viewer's attention with wide, static shots, and creative tracking shots that went on for a while. He was not afraid to test the viewer's patience. He was also unafraid to test patience with the length of his scenes, for example the Sydney Pollack confrontation at the end of Eyes Wide Shut. Nolan's shots are shorter than the average Hollywood trash. His scenes are shorter and choppier than the average Hollywood trash. His camera constantly moves for no reason, and cuts for no reason. His filmmaking suggests a greater degree of ADD insecurity than you'll find in the average Looney Toons short. I'm sorry, but anyone who finds Nolan to be technically proficient could do with some serious Ludovico Treatment.

Agreed 100%. I did not really defend Nolan. I just thought that some people are way too fast dismissing his style as if he was a total hack, getting not one single detail right, nothing short of M. Night Shyamalan(lately). Now I know exactly what people think is wrong. Now please tell me how it would be right.

Or to speak in musical terms: O.K. my keyboard solo sucked exhaust fumes; now please tell me why and explain to me how it should have been.

P.S. not trying to be the "good guy" here

Threeperf, I try to answer aspects of that question in these videos. Hopefully these links finally work:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5eUGEMmBY4

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

Yes they do. Thanks. Of course you have some excellent points there - and thanks for going to the trouble making these videos.
Please forgive me for doing some more thinking and research before I dismiss Nolan as a total hack - or one trick poney. Perhaps he isn't......