So basically, he's asking not to break the 180 degree rule during an action sequence. That is impossible in this case since there are so many lines of axis going on. So rather than keep all of the action on one axis, Nolan creates smaller spacial relationships to go between. There's Harvey and the Guard, the two drivers, the van and the truck, the Joker and the Batmobile and the Batmobile and the Van, all of which have their own respective axis of action which do not jump the line between each other. There's no problem with this, because the viewer watches one axis of action at a time, so it doesn't disorient you at all, unless of course you're looking to be a pretentious douche who parades his film school knowledge around like gospel. 

Wow.

I went to this guy's site, and unfortunately it's one of those places that doesn't have a way to leave comments. Only likes. I wonder why.Even though I'm almost too astonished for words, I feel I have to try and leave a comment for posterity if nothing else.This guy is... I mean, he's like that kid that goes to college and learns a couple of things and suddenly thinks he's insightful and brilliant, because of the few little books he's read, and he's about to tell you things your underexposed brain has never imagined before. Meanwhile they're nothing but painfully sophomoric.

"Look at this mess of a painting. The woman's eyes are over here and her feet are waaaay over here, there's something weird in the horse's mouth and look at the angle of the man's neck. All wrong. And is that newspaper print? This is the biggest piece of tripe I've ever seen!"

No, it's a Picasso, and it's called Cubism.

i.e.: Whatever level of filmmaking and editing this man can comprehend, it isn't at the level of technical brilliance that years of doing it will get you to. And so to him it looks like chaos.

I could have taken or left The Dark Knight as a movie, and I care even less for Batman as a character in comics, but when I saw the movie I left the theater unquestioning that TDK would be nominated for an editing Oscar. It didn't matter what the history of nominating had been up until that time, if you knew what you were looking at onscreen you couldn't in good consciousness not offer it a nomination.

So the point of the comment is: If you don't understand something, either ask or leave it alone. But don't embarrass yourself.

The Joker's sudden shotgun scene was "so quick it was unaffective"? Sheah Right bro.

You can nitpick any movie and find flaws. Nothing is perfectly done. Does the fact that some of the cuts in this scene seem strange make the movie unwatchable. Of course not. The true magic of movies is that sometimes they make you forget about reality. Its when you look for flaws, the magic is lost.

Dude.... Shitting on what is probably one of the better scenes of one of the awesomest movie ever ..... Get a job moron

Oh the editor cut this AND Inception. No wonder they are so jarring.

Man, Jim Emerson is still butt-hurt about people liking a movie he didn't like (The Dark Knight) three years after the fact.

I do not agree with this analysis at all.  It doesn't take lighting into account at all when discussing visual language and your desire for wider shots would take away from emotion impact.  CU's and MCU's are filmmaking's best friend.  It helps us to identify and relate to characters.  Spatial orientation is waaaaaay down on the list when it comes to covering a scene and assembling it together in the editing room.  In closing, poop on you.

http://www.lovetoshopping.org

wtf double post??

(and if we haven't I'll get around to it eventually)

kl

Nolan wasn't remotely good at directing action until Inception. I thought most people accepted that.

Couldn't finish this. Why would anyone watch 20 minutes of Kermit the Frog whining?

Shorter video:

"Nolan uses camera angles that confuse me so this means he can't shoot a coherent action scene.

"Also, I make silly objections to certain cut-away scenes because I don't understand their contribution to the plot."

you were confused by the action scene? it was a comic book movie, how can you get lost?

I'm a film major and I completely agree with this guy that the action scene played really loose with continuity of action, but unless you break it down like this guy did, it doesn't really affect my enjoyment of the scene or the movie. Also, isn't the fault with the editor on this rather than Nolan? I mean, I've shot films were I inadvertently break the 180 rule but I always fix it in post when I edit.

Watched 16 min of this...

Ok, so I didn't think the Dark Knight was a masterpiece, but as a filmmaker and former student of the filmmaking techniques and rules being thrown about here, I have to say that this analysis is just wrong. I'd make a counter point video, but I don't feel like it. (see @Ford_Thundercougarfalconbird's excellent breakdown for clarification) It was never unclear based on framing or cuts which side of the vehicle Dent is riding in, or how the semi crosses into the far lane or how the SWAT van is thrown into the wrong direction as it goes into the water. This critique does a pretty good job of slowing things down enough to make it REALLY obvious how well the action was cut together to maintain a sense of space, direction and orientation. 

Given all the really bad movies out there, comic based or otherwise, it seems silly to nit pick a film that is better than most at orienting the audience to the space within the frame. The only legitimate  criticism here is the extra cop car that shows up out of nowhere, but considering what an undertaking it is to make a film while attempting to satisfy idiotic studio heads, producers, investors and all manner of other things, it's amazing any film makes sense. 

This is one of the decent ones. Be happy.

After reading all the comments about this video critique I think it is apparent that this commentary on the chase sequence was a fail. It's too bad Nolan is too busy - you know, actually making movies - to rebut these critiques and point out how flawed they are.

This from the legendary screenwriter of "It's Pat"

I'm not disagreeing with your points... but I was able to follow the action fine. It's only when you look at things too critically that you lose your sense of direction. The first shot established that Harvey was on the passenger side and that was confirmed later... yes, an interior shot of both sides simulataneously would have done a better job, but if you never questioned it to begin with you would have been fine, too. Perhaps Nolan didn't make this film with cinematography nerds in mind. I also want to point out that studios or directors or producers often establish an optimal film run time prior to shooting and then try to cram it all in and some shots end up on the cutting room floor and the movie is cut as best as possible to explain the action. Granted there were obviously expendable shots that were included, but maybe those shots have some purpose you're not aware of. Shooting an action sequence is hard enough, no one should expect it to be perfectly cut. Interesting commentary though.

Meh, I really didn't find anything confusing when I watched it, and a lot of the complaints didn't seem valid to me...

I actually liked the separate shots of Harvey and the policeman toward the beginning because they create a sense of isolation around Harvey, but I can understand why he dislikes them.

My main issue with the scene is right at the beginning. Their original route is blocked off by a burning fire truck (oh, Joker...) and the only other option is to go underground on a route that's established as particularly exposed? What about the opposite side of the street? The whole road is clearly blocked off--it wouldn't make sense to just cut off access to the one side (another issue: there are civilians in the tunnel--why block off the route above ground but not underground?)

And another issue: passenger-seat-man's running commentary. It was so mindless and cliche it grated against the seriousness and drama of the chase. But Nolan's dialogue in general isn't my favorite. A lot of it just doesn't sound like something a real person would say.

And I thought I bitched about pointless things. There are tons of good movies with flaws but I still like them.

You see, Michael Bay Apologist Defense Squad members? THIS is the reason why characterization and an engaging plot is important: it distracts the audiences from inconceivable bollocks that the director was unfortunate enough to let slip in the final cut. By the time you're deeply invested in the plot and character, you would be too distracted to even consider the improbability of Batman suplexing a goddamn truck.

Well, at least during premiere night, anyway. XD

Well you can actually tell what is going on in a Chris Nolan scene so any suspension of the laws of physics and the spacetime continuum are... okay.

I didn't bother watching the whole thing.  After the first few minutes it was apparent that the guy wasn't pointing out technical problems, he was just going over things that confused him.  There were a few legit screw ups, but for the most part this was totally subjective.  A lot of us have come up with "better" Star Wars movies than Lucas, but that doesn't mean that they're definitively better, just that we would enjoy them more.

He totally missed the biggest error in the scene anyways.  When they come upon the burning fire truck that causes the whole convoy to move down to Lower Wacker, why didn't they simply cruise onto the other side of the damn street and stay on the surface?

I loved the movie, but agree that the action scenes weren't the best. But the movie really shines and the first time we see the Joker gives me shivers. The good parts of the movie make it a great movie and I can overlook things like a big build up to the Bat Plane only to be shot down emidiately by Jokers big stupid gun.

I hate fun things too.

http://www.lovetoshopping.org

This is a complete over analysis based on editing rules that are broken by nearly every single film classic. I'M NOT SAYING THE DARK KNIGHT IS A CLASSIC. But when you nitpick, you shouldn't pull out some bullshit NYU or USC textbook filled with the instruction of some guy who makes petty films. Tarantino doesn't follow most of these rules. Neither does Spielberg, Scorsese (whom he has the analyst has a needlessly huge boner for) or Hitchcock. The Institution of filmmaking is being broken quite often as time goes on and new directors/editors make bold, highly visualized films. And it comes from IndieWIRE which means this dude has tight pants, a scarf, hipster glasses and jerks off to every film in the Criterion collection using his failed attempts at screen writing as jizz napkins.

Really? My god that is hilarious. Talk about over analyzing and nitpicking. Also, when he fast forwards through the kissing part, my guess is his basement was cold that night.

Meh.

Those who can, do, etc. etc.

Great film. Period.

I gave up on this after 7 minutes. It's obvious the creator of the video is one of those film-school pretentious hipsters who find it impossible to enjoy anything because they lack a sense of whimsy and the inability to suspend their disbelief.

Finding a confusing chase scene (that is intended to be confusing) hard to follow because your brain is wondering what side of the van someone is sitting on is bad enough. Nitpicking about the number of cop cars, showing extras and physical placement of the actors in a film about a guy who dresses up as a bat and fights a sociopath in clown makeup? Now that takes a special kind of dork.

The video creator clearly sees every film he's ever watched by himself.

Never quite understood why so many people think Nolan is god of directors.  I have long maintained that Nolan's Batman movies were no better than anything Michael Bay would have done.  Neither was The Prestige, to be honest.  Haven't seen any of his other stuff.

Video appears to be gone now

I am a big fan of the Dark Knight, and I had no problems with this guys break down. Was it nit-picking? yes, but if redletterledia can nit pick the Star Wars prequels for hours, then I'll give this guy a 20 minute shot at a good movie. Nit picking is fun, no matter if you love or hate the movie.

At the end of the day you can still figure out what is happening in the chase scene, even with all the errors and perceived problems. You can still enjoy it no matter what.

One thing that did bug me was the quotes from reviewers about how hard the action was to follow. If the profession movie reviewers had their way we'd have pompous boring ass movies instead of fun ones. 

Good gawd. Nothing would ruin watching a movie more for me than to think I had to pay attention to every goddamn "rule" that wasn't adhered to when it was made. You mean "the Dark Knight" wasn't a perfect masterpiece of cinematic greatness? Guess it's a good thing I'm sitting down, huh?Look, I understand coherency is important in story telling and editing, but TDK is hardly a convoluted mess of a movie. This guy is only one step above the blowhard in the video store (remember them, kids?) shooting his mouth off. Oh, you have a degree in film making? No, not even that? Just read a lot about making movies? Good for you. Shut up and get out of my way so I can go watch a movie.

Mean spirited nit picking.  The 180 degree rule mattered, mattered a very great deal, when film was young and the grammar of editing was in its infancy. Based on the final image of this first part of three, Jim Emerson holds The General up as an early benchmark for screen action.  That may very well be the case, but it doesn't mitigate the fact that no-one's going to be watching that film outside of school and art houses; it's quaint, it's slow, it's devoid of the context it once had.  The grammar has evolved and audience's ability to keep up with it.  The sequence he's painstakingly dissecting might not make sense spatially, nor be entirely credible (in a film, lest we forget, about a billionaire who dresses as a bat to fight crime at night) but it was one of the most purely entertaining of 2008, perhaps of the decade.  Despite the biggest of budgets and most elaborate planning you don't get to film crashes and chases like that over and over.  Who knows what went wrong on the night that they had to work around?  Undoubtedly there is a bit of "making do" in the edit.  But that's what film-making is, a whole heap of accidents that sometimes, miraculously, result in something that entertains.

I found the whole chase scene rather easy to follow. How did this guy find so much to get confused about? He comes across as a pretentious douche.