In the Cut, Part I: Shots in the Dark (Knight)
from Jim Emerson on Vimeo.
Monday, September 12, 2011
In the Cut, Part I: Shots in the Dark (Knight)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In the Cut, Part I: Shots in the Dark (Knight)
from Jim Emerson on Vimeo.
5 comments:
I followed most of his critique of Dark Knight's editing and how something like what the editor shows you affects the story being told. Wonder if you could call this the dramaturgy of editing. I'm sure there's a correlation being this and drama, perhaps design. But I'm not sure I care, I actually kind of wish I didn't want this video he made. I thought that particular chase scene was pretty cool. Granted I don't watch action movies a lot but I'm not sure my brain registered all the continuity mistakes like he says it did. Or if it did, I'm not sure I cared. Nobody likes the guy who ruins the ending or spoils the secrets to a movie. Kind of felt like he was doing this a bit.
But now I'm interested to see how Pittsburgh fits into the newest Christopher Nolan, edited by the same Lee Smith project, Magnus Rex. Nolan is known, perhaps now notorious, for directing EVERYTHING in a film, including action. He spent a week on a chase scene in downtown Pittsburgh. I'll be watching closely to see how he patches in downtown Pittsburgh with LA (I think where the scene ends.) Will familiar visual territory spoil the shots and highlight Nolan's poor editing eye? Maybe. But mostly I'll be thinking: THIS IS SO COOL! I'M WATCHING A COMIC BOOK!!!
I agree with Matt. Watching this video was looking too close and the man behind the curtain. I feel the critiquer was trying too hard to find fault and show is knowledge of movie making. I did not watch the whole thing because I did not want to know too much. Working in theatre has already ruined the ability to appreciate plays.
I take that back. After seeing wicked in New York, I had the opportunity to see the backstage workings of the national tour. That experience did enable me to enjoy the performance on a different level. Even though some of the magic was gone.
I found his critique to be an interesting look at the breakdown of an action sequence and areas where it can go wrong. In theater you don't often run into problems like this because the audience's viewing angle doesn't change throughout a show. There's a whole other dimensional element in films and tv that storytellers have to contend with which allows for greater creative options, and for greater opportunity for mistakes.
I agree with his assessment that the fairly flat shots of the interior of the van made it hard is some cases to figure out which side of the van the characters were on and to know what direction the action was moving in.
Looking at the sequence piece by piece I feel like I can see what the intent of the visuals was and where someone might get lost, not because the action in unaccounted for, but because it's not always as obvious to a viewer who isn't in the know as the filmmaker themselves. In some cases I feel like maybe a few more frames on a particular action might have cleared up some of the confusion, or a slightly different angle to provide more environmental context.
Some shots like the first SWAT van getting hit by the truck and then falling into the water I can see how they might be confusing if you don't notice the van being spun around the post. However, I thought the fact that the truck then moved into the opposite lane was actually pretty clear.
Some of the other shots (like the approach of the tumbler - I refuse to call that thing the Batmobile) I feel might have been a deliberate misdirect to try and keep the action sequence more surprising which appear to have limited success in that they seem to have often confused some viewers.
I think the main reason that this sequence can be confusing is that sometimes the angle at which we are viewing the action changes, without any indication to the viewer that it has. It could simply stem from the fact that all those behind the camera at the time already knew what what happening from their storyboards and discussion of the sequence. So they might not have picked up on the fact that a viewer without previous knowledge wouldn't see what they knew to be happening. It's like when you misspell a word in a paper and even though you've read through it twice, you miss it because your brain knows what it's supposed to say and interprets it for you to look correct.
It's hard to say for certain whether the issues in this sequence comes from the directing, the editing, or a combination of the two. Overall I can see why some people were frustrated by some of it's inconsistencies, while at the same time I think in some cases the reviewer was a little overly critical.
For example. Yes the van didn't fall off the bridge and the exact right angle, but I'm guessing that's because they didn't actually have it driving at 90 degrees to the wall, likely because there just wasn't space. There's a good chance that the shot of the van crossing between lanes and the shot of the van going into the water took place on two very separate section of road, and in order to get the shot of the van going in the water, it likely was driving the opposite way down the highway and then made a hard turn to the outside to get up enough speed to crash through that wall. That's not really the kind of shot you get re-takes of, so yeah maybe the angle was a little too extreme in the opposite direction, but that's what you get sometimes when you work with actual effect shots rather than taking the CGI shortcut. In that case I think you just have to chalk it up to the fact that despite your best efforts, movies can't always recreate certain effects with complete realism and just enjoy that fact that you got to watch a van crash through a wall and into a river.
I love finding continuity errors or easter eggs in films. So, though I've never seen Dark Knight, this critique sparked my interest immediately.
I usually find mistakes like the ones Mr. Emerson pointed out to be amusing, but they also sort of drive me crazy. I'm shocked to imagine that a movie with as high a budget as Dark Knight (according to Wikipedia, it was $180 million) slacked so much on continuity. I'm kind of disappointed. Though the special effects were amazing, they were completely undermined with the lack of thought put into the sequence.
Since I've never seen this film, I have a interesting perspective. I didn't have an initial reaction to the sequence because I've never seen it in context. Now that I've watched this critique, the scene is obviously ruined for me. Though I can understand why this would bother most, it doesn't bother me. I love to watch movies specifically for mistakes as well as to examine the general editing style and the effect it has on the film.
I think the moral of this is that sometime big budget special effects aren't as important as having a really well thought-out plan. This applies to theatre as well. Having tons of stage magic is fantastic, but if there are continuity erros in the production or the acting is just atrocious, the special effects are going to waste.
After watching the sequences and listening to the editor, there are so many things that I completely missed and that I don't actually pay attention to when watching an action film. Action films in general are pieced together in two contrasting ways. There is the crazy chase and action scenes that confuse anyone watching, and there are the small but necessary "quiet" phases. Breaking down one of those meshed up action scenes and changing various aspects like the camera angle or the positioning, would help a lot. Not that this wasn't a great movie, there were plenty of positive aspects but this article seems to be focusing on the imperfections. In the end, editing is something that everyone has to do when trying to make something work out.
Post a Comment