"Scenes reflect what has not yet happened, scenes anticipate what has already happened."
December 6, 2011 4:21 PM Subscribe
In the Cut: Piecing Together the Action Sequence. A video essay in three parts by Jim Emerson.
This is driving me crazy. Didn't we have a post in the last six months about how overediting of action sequences is ruining contemporary films? I cannot find it to save my life.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 4:53 PM on December 6, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by Horace Rumpole at 4:53 PM on December 6, 2011 [1 favorite]
From the comments:
> The intent of those bad filmmaking choices in the action scene is to induce dread on a fundamental subconscious level. That there exists not just ideological malice, but metaphysical malice around the corner. Nolan, I wouldn't say hits you over the head with it(he's too good for that)...
We can argue back and forth about Christopher Nolan, but I don't think you're going to get far claiming that he's a *subtle* filmmaker.
Horace: there was this post of mine, but that was three and a half years ago.
posted by The Card Cheat at 4:58 PM on December 6, 2011
> The intent of those bad filmmaking choices in the action scene is to induce dread on a fundamental subconscious level. That there exists not just ideological malice, but metaphysical malice around the corner. Nolan, I wouldn't say hits you over the head with it(he's too good for that)...
We can argue back and forth about Christopher Nolan, but I don't think you're going to get far claiming that he's a *subtle* filmmaker.
Horace: there was this post of mine, but that was three and a half years ago.
posted by The Card Cheat at 4:58 PM on December 6, 2011
Describe the scene. How is it driving you crazy? Is there visual continuity? Is there a consistent geography of action?
posted by villanelles at dawn at 4:58 PM on December 6, 2011
posted by villanelles at dawn at 4:58 PM on December 6, 2011
Sorry, what I mean to say is the inability to find the post is driving me crazy. Maybe I saw it somewhere else, and it wasn't posted here.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 5:00 PM on December 6, 2011
posted by Horace Rumpole at 5:00 PM on December 6, 2011
Yes, thanks! Failure to tag for the loss.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 5:01 PM on December 6, 2011
posted by Horace Rumpole at 5:01 PM on December 6, 2011
a fun to read response from director Joseph Kahn
posted by muta at 5:03 PM on December 6, 2011 [5 favorites]
posted by muta at 5:03 PM on December 6, 2011 [5 favorites]
I meant to make this post a month ago and never got to it. Emerson does a great job showing exactly why I don't like most modern action sequences. I loved Dark Knight but in spite of action scenes like that one.
posted by octothorpe at 5:10 PM on December 6, 2011
posted by octothorpe at 5:10 PM on December 6, 2011
Wow, the back and forth between Kahn and Emerson in the comments in muta's link above is really entertaining, if you like train wrecks and posturing...
posted by ook at 6:15 PM on December 6, 2011
posted by ook at 6:15 PM on December 6, 2011
Reaction to the chase scenes:
TDK had me leaning back on my chair.
Wanted had me sitting straight admiring the cinematography.
Bullit had me with elbows on the desk, heart rate slightly up, but the cuts from one end of San Francisco to the other kept taking me out of the action.
The Lineup looked super crappy at first with the back projection and stiff acting, but by the end I was crushing my armrests and breathing fast.
Making movies is hard.
posted by Ayn Rand and God at 6:16 PM on December 6, 2011
TDK had me leaning back on my chair.
Wanted had me sitting straight admiring the cinematography.
Bullit had me with elbows on the desk, heart rate slightly up, but the cuts from one end of San Francisco to the other kept taking me out of the action.
The Lineup looked super crappy at first with the back projection and stiff acting, but by the end I was crushing my armrests and breathing fast.
Making movies is hard.
posted by Ayn Rand and God at 6:16 PM on December 6, 2011
I didn't make it as far as the comments on the Kahn thing, but man, Emerson's video was well reasoned and made some solid points, even if he he got a little pick in there. Kahn mostly comes across as someone who needs to switch to decaff. Or Xanax.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 6:22 PM on December 6, 2011
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 6:22 PM on December 6, 2011
Dobbs did this in the spring for the Dark Knight screenplay. It was an interesting read.
I've only watched the first part of this so far but it's excellent and the creator knows of what he speaks.
posted by You Should See the Other Guy at 7:02 PM on December 6, 2011
I've only watched the first part of this so far but it's excellent and the creator knows of what he speaks.
posted by You Should See the Other Guy at 7:02 PM on December 6, 2011
I think he may be technically correct on some aspects of TDK analysis, but he misses that this is probably intentional. I feel that Kahn does a pretty good job rebutting him, and the fact that the scene ISN'T polished plays in to the chaotic nature of the Joker character.
I did enjoy the videos, and I can accept his point that TDK messes with, and perhaps fails, several key rules of thumb for movie making, but I don't think it's a "mess" as he states.
posted by codacorolla at 7:15 PM on December 6, 2011
I did enjoy the videos, and I can accept his point that TDK messes with, and perhaps fails, several key rules of thumb for movie making, but I don't think it's a "mess" as he states.
posted by codacorolla at 7:15 PM on December 6, 2011
...and the fact that the scene ISN'T polished plays in to the chaotic nature of the Joker character.
I'd like to know if there is any conceivable criticism of TDK that can't be scuppered by this statement.
I've heard of unreliable narrator trope but this is a bit much. Should every lamentably inept movie now be up for reappraisal so long as it features one mentally unstable character?
posted by Kandarp Von Bontee at 7:34 PM on December 6, 2011 [1 favorite]
I'd like to know if there is any conceivable criticism of TDK that can't be scuppered by this statement.
I've heard of unreliable narrator trope but this is a bit much. Should every lamentably inept movie now be up for reappraisal so long as it features one mentally unstable character?
posted by Kandarp Von Bontee at 7:34 PM on December 6, 2011 [1 favorite]
It bugs me that Kahn talks about that sequence being on a "bridge". It's not a bridge. It was filmed on Wacker Drive here in Chicago, which is a two-level street that follows the Chicago River. That is, there's water on one side but not the other. There are bits of the scene that make it clear that this is retained for Gotham-- e.g. at 13:48 in Emerson's video, you can clearly see the inland wall.
posted by zompist at 7:39 PM on December 6, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by zompist at 7:39 PM on December 6, 2011 [1 favorite]
I'd like to know if there is any conceivable criticism of TDK that can't be scuppered by this statement.
I meant to do that!
It's a ridiculous rationalization repeated by people who'd rather believe good filmmaking is irrelevant when the director can blow things up real good.
posted by You Should See the Other Guy at 7:40 PM on December 6, 2011 [1 favorite]
It's a ridiculous rationalization repeated by people who'd rather believe good filmmaking is irrelevant when the director can blow things up real good.
posted by You Should See the Other Guy at 7:40 PM on December 6, 2011 [1 favorite]
Grr. My Pee Wee Herman tags were stripped from the "I meant to do that!"
posted by You Should See the Other Guy at 7:41 PM on December 6, 2011
posted by You Should See the Other Guy at 7:41 PM on December 6, 2011
Just watched TDK video. I'm sorry, but after all his bitching and whining he goes on to edit together a hypothetically "what the filmmaker intended" version of the scene and he leaves in a flash frame? It's right there at 15:32. He is a pompous ass who is too lazy to check his own work.
And christ, let up about the 180 degree rule. Action scenes are one of the very first examples of when it is ok to cross this line as the direction of movement maintains orientation.
posted by matt_od at 8:01 PM on December 6, 2011 [3 favorites]
And christ, let up about the 180 degree rule. Action scenes are one of the very first examples of when it is ok to cross this line as the direction of movement maintains orientation.
posted by matt_od at 8:01 PM on December 6, 2011 [3 favorites]
You can argue about how effective Nolan is in what he does, but it's pretty fucking obvious what he's going for with these action scenes.
I don't like the movie as much as I did when I watched it in the theater, and I think that part of it is because of the choppy action scenes, but calling it bad film making instead of a choice you disagree with is intellectually dishonest, in my opinion.
It's the same thing that he did when he analysed the Bourne series, where he totally misses the point that Bourne is supposed to be a reaction to Bond movies, and that the shaky-cam is part of that. This guy confuses his opinion with fact fairly regularly, and then backs it up with film 101 stuff that impresses the average viewer. What he says is interesting, but it purposefully flattens the surrounding elements of a film in order to advance whatever thesis he's trying to sell.
posted by codacorolla at 8:04 PM on December 6, 2011 [6 favorites]
I don't like the movie as much as I did when I watched it in the theater, and I think that part of it is because of the choppy action scenes, but calling it bad film making instead of a choice you disagree with is intellectually dishonest, in my opinion.
It's the same thing that he did when he analysed the Bourne series, where he totally misses the point that Bourne is supposed to be a reaction to Bond movies, and that the shaky-cam is part of that. This guy confuses his opinion with fact fairly regularly, and then backs it up with film 101 stuff that impresses the average viewer. What he says is interesting, but it purposefully flattens the surrounding elements of a film in order to advance whatever thesis he's trying to sell.
posted by codacorolla at 8:04 PM on December 6, 2011 [6 favorites]
Okay... I'm going to watch the second two parts after I write this comment, but...
I'm obsessed with The Dark Knight more than I should be, and he's right about a lot of things here. Particularly little things like Harvey's van disappearing from one shot to the next continuous shot, when his fan is a crucial player in the action, are simply bad cuts. They are. I am certain that they were taking what they could use from limited time allotted to them on Lower Wacker Drive, but that's one of the things you use CG for - put the damn van in the shot for the 30 frames you need it.
Other quibbles I find less convincing. This is a chase scene designed in three mini-acts. Act One has Harvey getting into the van and the convoy shipping off, until it is met by the diversion down to Lower Fifth. Act Two is the Joker showing up and everything going to hell on Lower Fifth, and Act Three is getting back above ground where Batman takes out the Joker's truck and faces him head-on.
But it is only in Act Two when we are this disoriented by the editing. The action is more or less crystal-clear in the other parts. Moreover, note that when the point of view of the scene switches to The Joker (scene-wise, not camera-wise) we are settled for a moment again. I like to think this is intentional. The cops have no idea what they're doing down there. The Joker does. They are disoriented. He is not. Once we get above ground, we're on even fotting again, to some extent.
posted by Navelgazer at 8:42 PM on December 6, 2011 [1 favorite]
I'm obsessed with The Dark Knight more than I should be, and he's right about a lot of things here. Particularly little things like Harvey's van disappearing from one shot to the next continuous shot, when his fan is a crucial player in the action, are simply bad cuts. They are. I am certain that they were taking what they could use from limited time allotted to them on Lower Wacker Drive, but that's one of the things you use CG for - put the damn van in the shot for the 30 frames you need it.
Other quibbles I find less convincing. This is a chase scene designed in three mini-acts. Act One has Harvey getting into the van and the convoy shipping off, until it is met by the diversion down to Lower Fifth. Act Two is the Joker showing up and everything going to hell on Lower Fifth, and Act Three is getting back above ground where Batman takes out the Joker's truck and faces him head-on.
But it is only in Act Two when we are this disoriented by the editing. The action is more or less crystal-clear in the other parts. Moreover, note that when the point of view of the scene switches to The Joker (scene-wise, not camera-wise) we are settled for a moment again. I like to think this is intentional. The cops have no idea what they're doing down there. The Joker does. They are disoriented. He is not. Once we get above ground, we're on even fotting again, to some extent.
posted by Navelgazer at 8:42 PM on December 6, 2011 [1 favorite]
What he says is interesting, but it purposefully flattens the surrounding elements of a film in order to advance whatever thesis he's trying to sell.
That's because you seem to be operating from two different premises: he believes Nolan doesn't know what he's doing and fucks it up because of that; you believe it's not fucked up and done on purpose. Or so I'm guessing based on your posts.
Personally, I found both Nolan Batman movies unbelievably boring--especially the action sequences. It's not just that Nolan's incompetence/ignorance results in confusing footage, it's that it is completely devoid of tension as a result of his lack of understanding how to properly block/compose/cut.
I don't know if you agree that the chase isn't suspenseful, but if you do, and you believe that's okay because it's cut the way Nolan wanted it then how can you argue that were it cut "properly" the film wouldn't be improved? It certainly couldn't have less tension. This is the logic that leads me to believe that, though it's obviously as good as Nolan can do (and that's clear based on every other action sequence he's ever done), it's not good enough.
Above I mentioned that a friend did this with the script of Dark Knight (rewrote it and pointed out its ridiculous flaws). One of the ones that he mentioned and has mentioned on MeFi before is the scene at the cocktail party. The Joker shows up to find Dent. Batman intercedes. The Joker disposes of Batman. The next logical move is for the Joker to do what he set out to do: get Dent. However, Nolan simply moves onto the next scene and hopes everyone forgets the reason the Joker's there in the first place. It's idiotic and it's sloppy. And when fanboys are shown this objectively false bit of storytelling, they rationalize it away ("Dent was hidden; Joker couldn't find him" yadda yadda--even though he's in plain sight (with a broomhandle blocking the door he's behind) and the "not finding" part isn't shown). Why? The same reason he gets a pass on his shitty action directing, I guess: apathy. People don't give a shit as long as the next scene is titillating.
Action scenes are one of the very first examples of when it is ok to cross this line as the direction of movement maintains orientation.
I don't understand this sentence. The purpose of the rule is to establish direction of movement. As the narrator clearly points out, when the axis is crossed, the direction is reversed in the mind of the viewer. This is why action sequences like in the second video (French Connection) are so riveting 40 years later--they work. They follow the rule. Whereas in the Dark Knight, the chase doesn't do anything except eat up time until the next stunt.
You can only cross the axis if you have the talent to use the frame to orient the viewer (as Noyce does in Salt in the linked video). Nolan doesn't have that sense/skill.
posted by You Should See the Other Guy at 9:09 PM on December 6, 2011 [3 favorites]
That's because you seem to be operating from two different premises: he believes Nolan doesn't know what he's doing and fucks it up because of that; you believe it's not fucked up and done on purpose. Or so I'm guessing based on your posts.
Personally, I found both Nolan Batman movies unbelievably boring--especially the action sequences. It's not just that Nolan's incompetence/ignorance results in confusing footage, it's that it is completely devoid of tension as a result of his lack of understanding how to properly block/compose/cut.
I don't know if you agree that the chase isn't suspenseful, but if you do, and you believe that's okay because it's cut the way Nolan wanted it then how can you argue that were it cut "properly" the film wouldn't be improved? It certainly couldn't have less tension. This is the logic that leads me to believe that, though it's obviously as good as Nolan can do (and that's clear based on every other action sequence he's ever done), it's not good enough.
Above I mentioned that a friend did this with the script of Dark Knight (rewrote it and pointed out its ridiculous flaws). One of the ones that he mentioned and has mentioned on MeFi before is the scene at the cocktail party. The Joker shows up to find Dent. Batman intercedes. The Joker disposes of Batman. The next logical move is for the Joker to do what he set out to do: get Dent. However, Nolan simply moves onto the next scene and hopes everyone forgets the reason the Joker's there in the first place. It's idiotic and it's sloppy. And when fanboys are shown this objectively false bit of storytelling, they rationalize it away ("Dent was hidden; Joker couldn't find him" yadda yadda--even though he's in plain sight (with a broomhandle blocking the door he's behind) and the "not finding" part isn't shown). Why? The same reason he gets a pass on his shitty action directing, I guess: apathy. People don't give a shit as long as the next scene is titillating.
Action scenes are one of the very first examples of when it is ok to cross this line as the direction of movement maintains orientation.
I don't understand this sentence. The purpose of the rule is to establish direction of movement. As the narrator clearly points out, when the axis is crossed, the direction is reversed in the mind of the viewer. This is why action sequences like in the second video (French Connection) are so riveting 40 years later--they work. They follow the rule. Whereas in the Dark Knight, the chase doesn't do anything except eat up time until the next stunt.
You can only cross the axis if you have the talent to use the frame to orient the viewer (as Noyce does in Salt in the linked video). Nolan doesn't have that sense/skill.
posted by You Should See the Other Guy at 9:09 PM on December 6, 2011 [3 favorites]
You Should See the Other Guy: I'm with you on the cocktail party scene, at least somewhat. Then again, the last bit of dialog in that sequence is of Rachel asking, "Is Harvey okay?" and Batman responding, "He's safe." So it doesn't just dismiss the question of Harvey and The Joker's pursuit of him. (The safety of the other party guests, however, as well as The Joker's exit... yeah I'd like to now how that was supposed to work.)
The niggling bit that really bothers me, even though there is perhaps an in-universe explanation, is how Harvey got the damaged coin. They make a point of showing him giving it to Rachel, the last thing he does in his last instance of ever seeing her. Then, tied to his hospital bed, he has it again. He doesn't have anything else, but somehow he has that. Of course, someone might have brought it over to him, knowing that it was his lucky coin and all, but his suddenly having the damaged coin, after giving it away, is jarring.
But as for finding Nolan's movies dull, I've got nothing for you. That sucks that you do. I find them pretty damned amazing myself, and I'm sorry that you don't enjoy them as well. (For possible mutual sympathy, I find Michael Mann's films to be dreadfully boring for the most part, and wish I liked them as much as others do.)
posted by Navelgazer at 9:23 PM on December 6, 2011
The niggling bit that really bothers me, even though there is perhaps an in-universe explanation, is how Harvey got the damaged coin. They make a point of showing him giving it to Rachel, the last thing he does in his last instance of ever seeing her. Then, tied to his hospital bed, he has it again. He doesn't have anything else, but somehow he has that. Of course, someone might have brought it over to him, knowing that it was his lucky coin and all, but his suddenly having the damaged coin, after giving it away, is jarring.
But as for finding Nolan's movies dull, I've got nothing for you. That sucks that you do. I find them pretty damned amazing myself, and I'm sorry that you don't enjoy them as well. (For possible mutual sympathy, I find Michael Mann's films to be dreadfully boring for the most part, and wish I liked them as much as others do.)
posted by Navelgazer at 9:23 PM on December 6, 2011
The purpose of the rule is to establish direction of movement.
No, the purpose of the 180 degree rule is to establish placement of characters and objects in a space. In the case of the chase scene in TDK before they ever cross the line it is established that the vehicles are traveling in the same direction. This then allows the crossing of the line since we, the audience, understand the directionality based on what direction any given vehicle is traveling.
The is a reason to break every rule. In this case I would argue the reason is to add kinetic energy. In addition I would say the filmmakers properly set up the direction in which the vehicles are traveling which forgives the breaking of the rule. Sure the SALT scene more closely follows the generic rules of filmmaking, but in my opinion it's a boring, seen it all before action scene. TDK scene is much bigger and tries something different.
posted by matt_od at 9:24 PM on December 6, 2011 [1 favorite]
No, the purpose of the 180 degree rule is to establish placement of characters and objects in a space. In the case of the chase scene in TDK before they ever cross the line it is established that the vehicles are traveling in the same direction. This then allows the crossing of the line since we, the audience, understand the directionality based on what direction any given vehicle is traveling.
The is a reason to break every rule. In this case I would argue the reason is to add kinetic energy. In addition I would say the filmmakers properly set up the direction in which the vehicles are traveling which forgives the breaking of the rule. Sure the SALT scene more closely follows the generic rules of filmmaking, but in my opinion it's a boring, seen it all before action scene. TDK scene is much bigger and tries something different.
posted by matt_od at 9:24 PM on December 6, 2011 [1 favorite]
Oh, and the 180-degree rule is to keep us from not being thrown off about action. If the direction of action is clear (as in a one-way-chase) it may be disobeyed at will as no one is confused by it. That was the point being made there, methinks.)
posted by Navelgazer at 9:24 PM on December 6, 2011
posted by Navelgazer at 9:24 PM on December 6, 2011
Finest TDK appraisal ever.
Re Michael Mann: I think, oddly enough, Nolan appreciates Mann's work a great deal. So much so that he traduced his own film franchise to result in a massively flawed homage that jettisons its own unique style and mythology for the sake of slavish emulation. Too bad the script demanded the cop character be dressed as a bizarre space-bat, but I guess that's the challenge of working in a commercial medium.
posted by Kandarp Von Bontee at 9:32 PM on December 6, 2011 [1 favorite]
Re Michael Mann: I think, oddly enough, Nolan appreciates Mann's work a great deal. So much so that he traduced his own film franchise to result in a massively flawed homage that jettisons its own unique style and mythology for the sake of slavish emulation. Too bad the script demanded the cop character be dressed as a bizarre space-bat, but I guess that's the challenge of working in a commercial medium.
posted by Kandarp Von Bontee at 9:32 PM on December 6, 2011 [1 favorite]
Oh, I agree that Nolan took massive cues from Mann with his version of the Batman franchise. And I don't doubt Mann's talent - it just usually doesn't work for me personally for whatever reason. But Nolan adapting it for Batman (and I'm not a super-Batman-fanboy, actually) is hypnotically effective to me, for whatever reason.
posted by Navelgazer at 9:39 PM on December 6, 2011
posted by Navelgazer at 9:39 PM on December 6, 2011
This then allows the crossing of the line since we, the audience, understand the directionality based on what direction any given vehicle is traveling.
By this logic one can never change the direction of a chase without showing the vehicles turning. If I plant a camera and have two cars zoom by left to right and then I cut to another shot from a stationary camera of the cars going right to left without having a reference to the previous shot (landmark or whatever) the implication is that the direction has changed. Yes, the cars are still heading in the same direction as each other, but they're heading back over the same ground.
With your way of following the rule, this is impossible to communicate because you feel that once you've established the direction you can cross the line whenever you please without communicating a change of direction. This is exactly what Nolan does in the analyzed scene and it's a mess. In your world the cars can never change direction without the change being shown--implying that if the change isn't shown then it didn't happen. I'd argue that you and Nolan are in the minority in that belief.
You might think Salt is boring (god knows, it is). However, that has nothing to do with the competence of Noyce's compositions and editing. It's simply a boring story. It was boring on the page and it's boring on the screen. But in the excerpted scene, the audience knows where everyone is and what's going on at all times. That's not the case in any Nolan movie since the first Batman. Do you find the chase in The French Connection boring? Do you suspect it could have been more suspenseful by crossing the axis willy-nilly? Is that really what you're arguing?
But as for finding Nolan's movies dull, I've got nothing for you.
I don't find his first 3 movies boring. I quite like them, actually. But everything after is shit.
posted by You Should See the Other Guy at 10:02 PM on December 6, 2011
By this logic one can never change the direction of a chase without showing the vehicles turning. If I plant a camera and have two cars zoom by left to right and then I cut to another shot from a stationary camera of the cars going right to left without having a reference to the previous shot (landmark or whatever) the implication is that the direction has changed. Yes, the cars are still heading in the same direction as each other, but they're heading back over the same ground.
With your way of following the rule, this is impossible to communicate because you feel that once you've established the direction you can cross the line whenever you please without communicating a change of direction. This is exactly what Nolan does in the analyzed scene and it's a mess. In your world the cars can never change direction without the change being shown--implying that if the change isn't shown then it didn't happen. I'd argue that you and Nolan are in the minority in that belief.
You might think Salt is boring (god knows, it is). However, that has nothing to do with the competence of Noyce's compositions and editing. It's simply a boring story. It was boring on the page and it's boring on the screen. But in the excerpted scene, the audience knows where everyone is and what's going on at all times. That's not the case in any Nolan movie since the first Batman. Do you find the chase in The French Connection boring? Do you suspect it could have been more suspenseful by crossing the axis willy-nilly? Is that really what you're arguing?
But as for finding Nolan's movies dull, I've got nothing for you.
I don't find his first 3 movies boring. I quite like them, actually. But everything after is shit.
posted by You Should See the Other Guy at 10:02 PM on December 6, 2011
No, I think the issue here (and I'm not disagreeing that the sequence on Lower Fifth is a mess, though I believe that it might be somewhat deliberate) is that in that sequence all of the action is linear. We know what direction everyone is heading in at all times, and so there's no need for the 180 degree rule, because breaking it doesn't cause any problems.
In fact, in that sequence, the only player going in the opposite direction is Batman, introduced half-way through, and his direction of action is also clear. What lane he is in might not be (it was to me, taking cues from which side of the semi The Joker was watching from, but I respect the criticisms) but direction of action was never in doubt. Show vehicles turning and, yes, you need an immediate and continuous adherence to the rule, most likely, but that wasn't an issue in that part of that sequence.
posted by Navelgazer at 10:18 PM on December 6, 2011 [1 favorite]
In fact, in that sequence, the only player going in the opposite direction is Batman, introduced half-way through, and his direction of action is also clear. What lane he is in might not be (it was to me, taking cues from which side of the semi The Joker was watching from, but I respect the criticisms) but direction of action was never in doubt. Show vehicles turning and, yes, you need an immediate and continuous adherence to the rule, most likely, but that wasn't an issue in that part of that sequence.
posted by Navelgazer at 10:18 PM on December 6, 2011 [1 favorite]
In episode 2F09, when Itchy plays Scratchy's skeleton like a xylophone, he strikes the same rib twice in succession, yet he produces two clearly different tones. I mean, what are we to believe, that this is some sort of a... magic xylophone or something? Boy, I really hope somebody got fired for that blunder.
posted by bpm140 at 10:22 PM on December 6, 2011 [10 favorites]
posted by bpm140 at 10:22 PM on December 6, 2011 [10 favorites]
You're putting a lot of words in my mouth.
I'm not laying out some basis of logic for which all filmmaking must adhere (unlike the gentleman making the videos seems to). I'm discussing the rules established in the scene being discussed. Within this scene it has clearly been setup that everyone is traveling in the same direction which allows the camera to bounce around. Yes, in this example if they then wanted to have vehicles changing directions they would need to clearly establish that. As Navelgazer points out this scene is linear, not a time jumping montage.
And hell no I don't think The French Connection is boring. There is not one set of rules by which all filmmakers must adhere. It's time to get past this filmmaking 101 bullshit. And while it's not willy-nilly, you can see at 2:02 even the holy French Connection crosses the line.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsZ0QGSITlU
posted by matt_od at 10:24 PM on December 6, 2011 [1 favorite]
I'm not laying out some basis of logic for which all filmmaking must adhere (unlike the gentleman making the videos seems to). I'm discussing the rules established in the scene being discussed. Within this scene it has clearly been setup that everyone is traveling in the same direction which allows the camera to bounce around. Yes, in this example if they then wanted to have vehicles changing directions they would need to clearly establish that. As Navelgazer points out this scene is linear, not a time jumping montage.
And hell no I don't think The French Connection is boring. There is not one set of rules by which all filmmakers must adhere. It's time to get past this filmmaking 101 bullshit. And while it's not willy-nilly, you can see at 2:02 even the holy French Connection crosses the line.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsZ0QGSITlU
posted by matt_od at 10:24 PM on December 6, 2011 [1 favorite]
I'd like to add that while the reviewer gently mocks the "introduction" of expendable characters in medium shot which happens so often in the TDK sequence, I think this was a bold and important choice. People don't die faceless in this movie. Even if it's just for an instant, we're going to see or hear them before they are killed in the big-budget action sequence, which makes the collisions less fun, yes, but that's part of the point.
posted by Navelgazer at 10:50 PM on December 6, 2011 [2 favorites]
posted by Navelgazer at 10:50 PM on December 6, 2011 [2 favorites]
There are some valid criticisms in the TDK thing, but some of his points are just silly.
"Dent could be sitting ANYWHERE."
Well, no. It's super-obvious that he's still where he originally sat down, and the cop that appears to be facing him is uh. Facing him. The truck's rear is to Dent's left and the cop's right.
"You may not remember this guy, but"
What?
I may not remember the truck driver with the ridiculous crocodile dundee hat? The guy driving the truck that we've seen introduced twice now, both with the same menacing angle from below its bumper? The one that we know has the Joker in it? We may not remember that guy?
You may have the memory of a guppy, but I promise you, I remember silly-hat-wearing-joker-truck-driving guy.
"You see how this semi is shown turning in the direction of the convoy's travel is it impacts the swat van, and then later it's traveling in the direction it was turning? CRAZINESS."
wat
Seriously.
It was a zany ridiculous chase sequence, but it was not confusing.
posted by kavasa at 11:25 PM on December 6, 2011
"Dent could be sitting ANYWHERE."
Well, no. It's super-obvious that he's still where he originally sat down, and the cop that appears to be facing him is uh. Facing him. The truck's rear is to Dent's left and the cop's right.
"You may not remember this guy, but"
What?
I may not remember the truck driver with the ridiculous crocodile dundee hat? The guy driving the truck that we've seen introduced twice now, both with the same menacing angle from below its bumper? The one that we know has the Joker in it? We may not remember that guy?
You may have the memory of a guppy, but I promise you, I remember silly-hat-wearing-joker-truck-driving guy.
"You see how this semi is shown turning in the direction of the convoy's travel is it impacts the swat van, and then later it's traveling in the direction it was turning? CRAZINESS."
wat
Seriously.
It was a zany ridiculous chase sequence, but it was not confusing.
posted by kavasa at 11:25 PM on December 6, 2011
You might think Salt is boring (god knows, it is). However, that has nothing to do with the competence of Noyce's compositions and editing. It's simply a boring story. It was boring on the page and it's boring on the screen. But in the excerpted scene, the audience knows where everyone is and what's going on at all times. That's not the case in any Nolan movie since the first Batman. Do you find the chase in The French Connection boring? Do you suspect it could have been more suspenseful by crossing the axis willy-nilly? Is that really what you're arguing?
I think that the scenes he holds up as exemplars are trying to do one thing, and TDK is trying to do something else.
In both Salt, the French Connection, and Bullit the goal is to make the active person (either in car or on foot) appear competent and in control, and by extension, make the audience feel in control of the action that's taking place on the screen. This is why by-the-book cutting and framing are used, so that the audience appreciates every movement, and the heavily choreographed action is easy to follow. In Batman, which aims (a little too pretentiously, in my opinion, but whatever) to capture a feeling of chaos and lack of control, the typical things that the audience is given to follow an action scene aren't followed. It creates a different type of tension, where you are expecting a certain grammar of action, and Nolan is shaking it up and disorienting it. When I left the theater for this movie I felt exhausted, because it really does throw so much kinetic energy at you. In spite of this exhaustion, I was never confused by the action (like I was in the Bourne movies, which are intentionally confusing).
I don't really love this style of film, and I think it was sort of overused when Nolan chose it for TDK, and has become even more tedious in the intervening years, but I think it's a choice that was made which carries other themes of the movie. An example from this series is the last film, The Lineup, where he mentions that the shots get tighter and tighter as the antagonists lose hope. I feel that this is something similar - the shots are chaotic and messy because the action is chaotic and messy.
This is my reading of the film, however, and I admit it might be wrong since I'm looking at this from the perspective of an audience member rather than an editor or director. I think a better measure of Nolan's film making talent would be to compare the action scenes in Begins (which is ostensibly about Batman gaining control, rather than losing it) and see how they stack up.
posted by codacorolla at 8:34 AM on December 7, 2011 [1 favorite]
I think that the scenes he holds up as exemplars are trying to do one thing, and TDK is trying to do something else.
In both Salt, the French Connection, and Bullit the goal is to make the active person (either in car or on foot) appear competent and in control, and by extension, make the audience feel in control of the action that's taking place on the screen. This is why by-the-book cutting and framing are used, so that the audience appreciates every movement, and the heavily choreographed action is easy to follow. In Batman, which aims (a little too pretentiously, in my opinion, but whatever) to capture a feeling of chaos and lack of control, the typical things that the audience is given to follow an action scene aren't followed. It creates a different type of tension, where you are expecting a certain grammar of action, and Nolan is shaking it up and disorienting it. When I left the theater for this movie I felt exhausted, because it really does throw so much kinetic energy at you. In spite of this exhaustion, I was never confused by the action (like I was in the Bourne movies, which are intentionally confusing).
I don't really love this style of film, and I think it was sort of overused when Nolan chose it for TDK, and has become even more tedious in the intervening years, but I think it's a choice that was made which carries other themes of the movie. An example from this series is the last film, The Lineup, where he mentions that the shots get tighter and tighter as the antagonists lose hope. I feel that this is something similar - the shots are chaotic and messy because the action is chaotic and messy.
This is my reading of the film, however, and I admit it might be wrong since I'm looking at this from the perspective of an audience member rather than an editor or director. I think a better measure of Nolan's film making talent would be to compare the action scenes in Begins (which is ostensibly about Batman gaining control, rather than losing it) and see how they stack up.
posted by codacorolla at 8:34 AM on December 7, 2011 [1 favorite]
I just want to kiss this guy for actually giving a shit about spatial fidelity (you know, if he's into getting kissed by dudes).
I don't really get this vein of "obviously that's what Nolan was trying to do." Emerson more or less says that this is entirely possible. There are several sequences in that chase where, after multiple viewings, I'm still not sure what's happening. I don't think I ever realized the Batmobile was leaping over a car to take a bazooka hit until Emerson pointed it out here; same with that weird shot later on where the Batpod runs up the side of a building and flips around - had no idea what happened there the first time. You could argue that it's intentional, and I could quibble with you on that (I find it unlikely that the car bursting out in the wrong direction or the number of cop cars changing was a directorial decision). But there are sequences that are visually coherent to compare it to - the semi-trailer flipping over, a shot with no edits, comes to mind.
Even if it was intentional, does that mean it was more effective? 'cuz I don't think so.
posted by Peevish at 8:51 AM on December 7, 2011 [1 favorite]
I don't really get this vein of "obviously that's what Nolan was trying to do." Emerson more or less says that this is entirely possible. There are several sequences in that chase where, after multiple viewings, I'm still not sure what's happening. I don't think I ever realized the Batmobile was leaping over a car to take a bazooka hit until Emerson pointed it out here; same with that weird shot later on where the Batpod runs up the side of a building and flips around - had no idea what happened there the first time. You could argue that it's intentional, and I could quibble with you on that (I find it unlikely that the car bursting out in the wrong direction or the number of cop cars changing was a directorial decision). But there are sequences that are visually coherent to compare it to - the semi-trailer flipping over, a shot with no edits, comes to mind.
Even if it was intentional, does that mean it was more effective? 'cuz I don't think so.
posted by Peevish at 8:51 AM on December 7, 2011 [1 favorite]
Even if it was intentional, does that mean it was more effective? 'cuz I don't think so.
I do think it was intentional, and my answer would be yes and no on effectiveness. It made the first time I saw the movie an absolutely amazing experience. Very visceral, and like I mentioned, I felt drained after the movie because of how much it throws at you, and the velocity with which it does.
However, it doesn't bear up to repeated viewings. The Joker's performance is still amazing, but everything else gets more and more tiresome with each time I've watched it. Like I said, I'm sick of this type of film making in general.
As a counterpoint, I was never confused about what was happening in the scenes (at least not that I can remember). I mean... The Joker fires off his bazooka, you see the batmobile launch, and an explosion hits it. That was always clear to me. Perhaps if you're looking at the movie with a more directorial eye then you'll be distracted by the rules he breaks.
posted by codacorolla at 9:08 AM on December 7, 2011 [1 favorite]
I do think it was intentional, and my answer would be yes and no on effectiveness. It made the first time I saw the movie an absolutely amazing experience. Very visceral, and like I mentioned, I felt drained after the movie because of how much it throws at you, and the velocity with which it does.
However, it doesn't bear up to repeated viewings. The Joker's performance is still amazing, but everything else gets more and more tiresome with each time I've watched it. Like I said, I'm sick of this type of film making in general.
As a counterpoint, I was never confused about what was happening in the scenes (at least not that I can remember). I mean... The Joker fires off his bazooka, you see the batmobile launch, and an explosion hits it. That was always clear to me. Perhaps if you're looking at the movie with a more directorial eye then you'll be distracted by the rules he breaks.
posted by codacorolla at 9:08 AM on December 7, 2011 [1 favorite]
You might think Salt is boring (god knows, it is). However, that has nothing to do with the competence of Noyce's compositions and editing. It's simply a boring story. It was boring on the page and it's boring on the screen.
I gotta say, Salt was actually pretty good in a classic spy thriller sort of way. Does what it says on the tin, so to speak.
Regarding the post, I'd like to see a comparison between TDK and the big rig chase in Road Warrior. Both are examples of "vehicle A needs to get to location B without stopping". I've watched Road Warrior dozens of times, but never paid much attention to the editing of that chase.
posted by schoolgirl report at 9:40 AM on December 7, 2011 [1 favorite]
I gotta say, Salt was actually pretty good in a classic spy thriller sort of way. Does what it says on the tin, so to speak.
Regarding the post, I'd like to see a comparison between TDK and the big rig chase in Road Warrior. Both are examples of "vehicle A needs to get to location B without stopping". I've watched Road Warrior dozens of times, but never paid much attention to the editing of that chase.
posted by schoolgirl report at 9:40 AM on December 7, 2011 [1 favorite]
And by the way, are we really to take expert advice from Joseph Kahn, famed director of Britney Spears videos?
posted by schoolgirl report at 9:51 AM on December 7, 2011
posted by schoolgirl report at 9:51 AM on December 7, 2011
And by the way, are we really to take expert advice from Joseph Kahn, famed director of Britney Spears videos?
As opposed to expert criticism from Jim Emerson, famed co-writer of "It's Pat: The Movie"?
posted by Amanojaku at 10:10 AM on December 7, 2011 [2 favorites]
As opposed to expert criticism from Jim Emerson, famed co-writer of "It's Pat: The Movie"?
posted by Amanojaku at 10:10 AM on December 7, 2011 [2 favorites]
Oof.
posted by schoolgirl report at 11:27 AM on December 7, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by schoolgirl report at 11:27 AM on December 7, 2011 [1 favorite]
To be fair, the other co-writer there is Quentin Tarantino.
posted by Navelgazer at 2:22 PM on December 7, 2011
posted by Navelgazer at 2:22 PM on December 7, 2011
Well, that explains why It's Pat: The Movie starts with a 15-minute scene of Pat and three hitmen sitting in a 50's-style diner booth arguing about whether The Dark Knight's chase scenes are incoherent or not. Really brought a new depth to the Pat character, that scene.
posted by No-sword at 5:21 PM on December 7, 2011
posted by No-sword at 5:21 PM on December 7, 2011
Yeesh, the vitriol in that Kahn link is insane. I thought Emerson took great pains to explain what he was doing; describing why he found the sequence confusing and disjointed – as I (and I expect many people) did – and examining the editing decisions that he thinks made it so. Nothing about his presentation made me think he was being a "prick" but maybe I'm in the minority on that.
> "Dent could be sitting ANYWHERE."
Well, no. It's super-obvious that he's still where he originally sat down, and the cop that appears to be facing him is uh. Facing him. The truck's rear is to Dent's left and the cop's right.
This was not super-obvious to me when I watched it and it's still not obvious even re-watching it deliberately keeping in mind where he's supposed to be sitting. I assumed he'd been jostled around and ended up on the other side when the van was rear-ended.
This is reinforced by the only spatial cue in the shot, the mesh window on the wall to his right (that is, camera left) which I visually understand as mesh over the windows we saw, on the inside of the rear doors of the van, when he got in. (If they were the same mesh, this would put him on the driver's side, which is why I guess it's just some other mesh-covered window in the van.) But this assumption is undone by the bullet dents appearing in the van behind the cop, instead of Dent, and I just end up confused.
My other beef with the interior van shots of Dent are how the position of the camera makes no sense to me spatially – if Dent's sitting on the passenger side all the way to the back (where he sat down in the establishing shot), and the camera is pointed at the left side of his face, it reads to me like he's being filmed from a camera that should physically be outside the van's rear doors. If the camera had been filming his other side (i.e. pointed more toward the rear of the van than the front) that would have helped a lot.
"You see how this semi is shown turning in the direction of the convoy's travel is it impacts the swat van, and then later it's traveling in the direction it was turning? CRAZINESS."
The craziness (aside from the totally nonsensical direction of the van's movement in the aerial shot where it hits the water) is that the semi and the convoy seem to be going the opposite direction than they were when the semi appeared. Emerson makes this point poorly because he interjects an unrelated bit about the Joker reveal right in the middle of it.
> As a counterpoint, I was never confused about what was happening in the scenes (at least not that I can remember). I mean... The Joker fires off his bazooka, you see the batmobile launch, and an explosion hits it. That was always clear to me.
That's clear to him as well. The part that's not clear is why Dent's van teleports away between the moment the bazooka is fired and the moment the batmobile intercepts it.
Thanks for the post, I really enjoyed it
posted by churl at 11:40 PM on December 7, 2011
> "Dent could be sitting ANYWHERE."
Well, no. It's super-obvious that he's still where he originally sat down, and the cop that appears to be facing him is uh. Facing him. The truck's rear is to Dent's left and the cop's right.
This was not super-obvious to me when I watched it and it's still not obvious even re-watching it deliberately keeping in mind where he's supposed to be sitting. I assumed he'd been jostled around and ended up on the other side when the van was rear-ended.
This is reinforced by the only spatial cue in the shot, the mesh window on the wall to his right (that is, camera left) which I visually understand as mesh over the windows we saw, on the inside of the rear doors of the van, when he got in. (If they were the same mesh, this would put him on the driver's side, which is why I guess it's just some other mesh-covered window in the van.) But this assumption is undone by the bullet dents appearing in the van behind the cop, instead of Dent, and I just end up confused.
My other beef with the interior van shots of Dent are how the position of the camera makes no sense to me spatially – if Dent's sitting on the passenger side all the way to the back (where he sat down in the establishing shot), and the camera is pointed at the left side of his face, it reads to me like he's being filmed from a camera that should physically be outside the van's rear doors. If the camera had been filming his other side (i.e. pointed more toward the rear of the van than the front) that would have helped a lot.
"You see how this semi is shown turning in the direction of the convoy's travel is it impacts the swat van, and then later it's traveling in the direction it was turning? CRAZINESS."
The craziness (aside from the totally nonsensical direction of the van's movement in the aerial shot where it hits the water) is that the semi and the convoy seem to be going the opposite direction than they were when the semi appeared. Emerson makes this point poorly because he interjects an unrelated bit about the Joker reveal right in the middle of it.
> As a counterpoint, I was never confused about what was happening in the scenes (at least not that I can remember). I mean... The Joker fires off his bazooka, you see the batmobile launch, and an explosion hits it. That was always clear to me.
That's clear to him as well. The part that's not clear is why Dent's van teleports away between the moment the bazooka is fired and the moment the batmobile intercepts it.
Thanks for the post, I really enjoyed it
posted by churl at 11:40 PM on December 7, 2011
I thoroughly enjoyed these. Please link to more well-edited film nerdery.
posted by Theta States at 8:11 PM on December 11, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by Theta States at 8:11 PM on December 11, 2011 [1 favorite]
I don't have much to say about most of that scene, but dear god fix the shots of the sideswiped van. It's no longer moving forward with the convoy, so the camera reversals are especially disorienting.
posted by Monochrome at 5:48 PM on January 2, 2012
posted by Monochrome at 5:48 PM on January 2, 2012
Watching these reminded me how annoying the Dark Knight movies all relying on "video game logic" was.
posted by Theta States at 10:30 PM on January 4, 2012
posted by Theta States at 10:30 PM on January 4, 2012
« Older "Weasel Wednesday" comes a day early | Look Out Below Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Think_Long at 4:46 PM on December 6, 2011 [4 favorites]