I disagree with pretty much everything this guy says, and I'd bet that millions of moviegoers would, too. If TDK was such a "visual mess", then why did it gross over a billion dollars with people flocking to see it more than once? Because this guy views movies in a more "logical" way than 99.9% of the Earth does. And is worse off for it.

I concur. While I do think it's valuable for filmmakers, even screenwriters, to contemplate both 'composition' and 'cut' when we conceive our stories and translate them onto film / paper, this type of analysis leaves me scratching my head. I have the same experience with some academics I read or talk to about 'cinema,' leaving me to wonder what planet they're from. I mean I consider myself a bit highbrow myself, but I thought TDK was the film experience of the year. Completely blew me away by totally immersing me in that story universe.

There are technical things that he's right about, of course, (like the changing three/ two cop cars at the back of the convoy, which I hadn't noticed before), but with the analysis of direction, impact etc, I think there's a deliberate piece of film grammar that he may not be allowing for. This is a chase. We expect, therefore, for everything that's moving to be moving constantly forwards - and in western culture (because we write left to right) 'forward' on a flat screen is left to right. Anything going right to left reads, at least at a subconscious level, as going backwards. (Well, it does to me. Maybe I'm just weird.) And as far as I can tell, almost all of the significant motion here is left to right. When there's a collision, anyone in the vehicle suffering the impact is jolted (at least slightly) left to right. The vehicles move primarily left to right, and the camera angle often changes to keep up this illusion. When something comes into frame unexpectedly - whether it's the truck forcing the SWAT van into the river, or the Joker popping up in the truck cab to shoot the cop before joining the chase - they come from the left, which means they register to our minds as joining the chase from 'behind' (not literally, necessarily), and not from 'in front' which would break the "rules" of a chase. This suggests to me that there's a screen geography here that has nothing to do with real space, and everything to do with creating an impression of constant 'forward' motion, from left to right, that reads as a chase in our minds. If the strict continuity he's proposing was enforced, then to my mind, the scene would become far more confusing, not less so. And there's always the possibility that certain shots could only be got from certain angles, due to the limitations of location shooting, etc... I've never been confused by this scene, or any of Nolan's action scenes. But I would love to see a similar analysis of a Michael Bay action sequence...

First Scott let me just say "DAMN!" Sir you are comprehensive. I actually first saw this video on Friday but I never thought I would see it here. I actually agreed with a lot of what he had to say myself. It's nice to find some substantial criticism about film that points out specifics. Although I do find some of his observations a tad slight, overall there's a lot to chew on here. This coming from a fan of film criticism. There's no doubt that this video, and to an extent the critic himself (Jim Emerson who I follow pretty regularly) are pretty focused on the film form itself. While over here at GITS, which I LOVE by the way, we tend to be more focused on the story (obviously), characters, etc. I think there is room for both perspectives and to be honest there isn't much to offer here to those of us who are looking to improve our craft of screenwriting and/or make a salable screenplay, but I think it has its merits elsewhere. I actually think this reaction highlights the strength and weaknesses of Nolan as a filmmaker. I find Nolan as screenwriter and storyteller first and foremost to be incredible. His grasp of narrative has provided me some of the best times I've had at the movies. But if I was to judge him purely on his aesthetics as a director, I sometimes find his sequences...lack something. @maker09 I agree that most moviegoers would disagree with him but what does that really mean. We all disagree on movies at one time or another. Does that make one person right and the other wrong? Also making the argument that it grossed X amount of dollars and was seen by X amount of people I think is a weak argument. I think anyone of us can say (fill in the blank title) grossed ____ dollars about a pretty terrible movie. I don't think BO results mean much to the worth of the film outside a discussion of Hollywood trends. Plus the critic is worse off for it? Really? I think we should allow people their own reaction to the film without judging them. @Scott I'm glad you posted it. It shows how valuable this blog really is; that it shows all types of film related items. A little disappointing that you didn't include one of the best parts of the post though. He added a n ADDENDUM at the end of the post over at Scanners and it was a link to a post by DB on screenwriter Jean-Claude Carrière. This guy was basically spitting your wisdom line for line. Must read stuff. http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/2011/09/09/jcc/ @Debbie Moon Great point. I think you've identified what makes the scene work for most of us. It's a general approximation we need, not an entirely specific geographic space. Whoo. I'm out. That was lengthy.

This is a really interesting article. I would love to see him analyze a Bourne movie because those are the king of shaky-cam/multiple cuts. Overall though, I think Nolan/Pfister do a great job of shooting action sequences (of course that's why he got an Oscar). This is why I love love love Zack Snyder's action sequences. I know that a lot of people rag on him for doing the same slow-mo and sweeping shots but they are completely coherent and gorgeous. You can understand everything that is happening. I think that without a doubt, he makes the best action sequences out there.

DM, methinks there's a budding director bubbling up inside your creative consciousness! Me? I never noticed that. Then I just watched the sequence again [which I still love]. And damn. You're right! Left to right, that is. Just had a funny thought. Try to indicate that in a script: Truck zooms down the road... left to right... Helicopter swoops after it... left to right... Reader would think you were a bit off. But from a directing and editing standpoint, I'll bet your point -- from a purely psychological perspective -- has merit. Maybe some editors would chime in with their two cents.

Alandre, I post all sorts of things on this blog, even if I don't understand or agree with them, if I feel like they will contribute to our overall conversation about storytelling and filmmaking. And you're right: My focus is on written narrative as it translates into a psychological experience for a reader. Re Bordwell: What can I say? He's simply the best at what he does and has been for years.

Even though I along with most people it seems didn't think much of "Watchmen" [the movie], it was a visual feast. I still think that first trailer is one of the most exciting I've ever seen, totally pumped me up to see the movie. You're right, he's an amazing visualist. It will be really interesting to see what he does with "Man of Steel." There is some heavy duty talent involved in the writing department, so assuming he's given a great narrative structure, MOS will have style and substance.

@DM: Great point with the left-to-right pick up. That's something a lot of directors are taught--the general rule of thumb is that left to right movement feels "comfortable" for the exact reasons you mentioned (we read left to right and our eye movement in that direction seems "natural"), and that right to left feels "uncomfortable." Really conscious directors will use that to highlight a villain or to accent a scene that's supposed to be nauseating or explicit. About Emerson's video. First of all, I absolutely adore Christopher Nolan, but I'd be one of the first people to say that his biggest weakness is shooting action. He's not good at it. He's admitted it. It's not his greatest gift by any stretch of the imagination, and that's pretty plain in both TDK and Inception. Emerson is right about a lot of what he's saying: it might sound like he's just being unbelievably nitpicky, and it's true that his analysis means next to nothing for the average moviegoer, but he's not just bitching and moaning about little continuity errors. For lack of a better term, he's talking about the language of cinema. It has almost nothing to do with writing (like Scott said, you can't be writing in left-to-right composition in a screenplay), but what he's discussing when he's looking at the way scenes are cut together and what that's telling us about the space this sequence is taking place in is completely valid from a directing standpoint. Did it ruin the movie for everyone? Obvvvviously not! Billions of dollars later, clearly people loved the movie. But he's not making this analysis to say that, he's making it to say that Nolan's comfort level with big set pieces is shaky--and he's right! He is! He breaks a lot of "rules" there, and in most of the cases, I don't think you can argue that it was because he was making conscious decisions to do so. He just isn't good at it. Another action sequence of Nolan's that stands out for being poorly shot is that sequence towards the beginning of Inception when DiCaprio's character is racing through Ken Watanabe's collapsing headquarters building. That almost gave me a headache in the theaters: randomly tight shots cutting to shaky close shots of some other part of the action cutting to...it's not smooth. Compare the action scenes as they're constructed in The Dark Knight to almost any action movie ever made by James Cameron and you immediately see the difference. For my money, there's not a single director alive who's better than Cameron when it comes to the staging, framing and capturing (clearly) motion in action scenes. Terminator 2, Aliens and Avatar are absolutely brilliant in that department. I hope one of the sequences that Emerson evaluates next is something from one of Cameron's movies because he's an absolute master at that. Any aspiring directors out there, break down any of his big set pieces and you can see readily see the difference. @Scott/Adam: I think that Snyder makes gorgeous LOOKING action scenes, definitely, but I don't know if I'd go so far as to say he makes the best. He's one of those guys who has no cap to his ambition when it comes to action sequences: the more money he's got at his disposal, the bigger the sequences get, regardless if that's what they need. Sucker Punch is that problem writ massively, massively large. His eye for style and for visual flair is unreal, though. I'd love to see him make something for 25 million dollars and not have a massive SFX budget to play with, and have to be just a tiny bit less flashy. And maybe not speed ramp everything. As awesome as it looks. Gotta say though, his action scenes look almost painterly in Watchmen and 300. Visual flair category, he's beating almost anyone. In terms of crafting the actual action scene and making it varied and interesting (changing the film speed doesn't count), any of the major fight sequences in The Matrix blow it out of the water.

@DM, @Nate. Great points. I might go even further. I'd wonder if Chris Nolan isn't consciously crosscutting, disorientating us, and going against our "expected" visual grain absolutely on purpose. And that his intention in doing so is absolutely consistent with if not embedded in the themes he's already established in the script. Here's Nolan in an Inception interview with Wired: "Nolan: I was concerned, but I was invigorated by the challenge. And the crosscutting at the end of the film and the interrelationships between the levels [in Inception] were the jumping-off point for the whole project. That was what I first conceived of, and for 10 years I was trying to figure out how to get to that point at the end of the film. One of the things that gave me that confidence was that the last 20 minutes of The Dark Knight are based on very similar principles of crosscutting, parallel action. So we went into the climactic action of the film knowing the things you need to know to distinguish environments. One of the limitations we put on ourselves—Wally Pfister, my director of photography, and myself—is that we didn’t want to do any post-processing on the image. We wanted to have the distinctions there in the design and the feel, so I wrote it into the script. It’s raining in level one, it’s a night-interior in level two, and it’s an exterior with snow in level three. Even if you’re cutting to a close-up of Yusuf in the van in level one, you know where you are because the rain is there." The complaints about the disorientating/spatially discombobulated nature of Nolan's action scenes like the shaky cam complaints in re: Bourne Ultimatum have been around. See this Dennis Lim's 2007 article in Slate and especially the cool accompanying slide show. We can argue the effectiveness of a style that goes against the grain. But only he and Wally Pfister can say what's a "mistake" and what's conscious, right?

What this discussion reinforces is my hard-wired connection to narrative and characters, and is probably why I'd be a shitty director. As long as I'm connected to the characters and the movement of the Plotline and Themeline, I rarely think about the minutiae of each shot's composition. I do to the degree they are a reflection of each character's connection to the moment. And I do in terms of editing. Both of those are reflected in what we write. And I do in a more macro sense of how we use sluglines and -- nowadays -- individual lines of scene description to suggest camera shots. But anything more specific than that, and I'm happy to leave that up to the director. So there you go. A confession of one of my 'limitations.' And yet I obsess over the visual nature of what I write on the page. I just approach it way more from the perspective of the characters within the story universe than a director coming up with a shot list outside the story universe.

That quote amplifies my reply to Nate as it seems to me Nolan is speaking more like a screenwriter than a director. His most bottom line concern is to make sure the script reader (and by extension the moviegoer) can make sense of where they are in terms of the various dream-state levels. And so the specific iteration of the details of each level are distinct precisely to that point. "We wanted to have the distinctions there in the design and the feel, so I wrote it into the script. It’s raining in level one, it’s a night-interior in level two, and it’s an exterior with snow in level three. Even if you’re cutting to a close-up of Yusuf in the van in level one, you know where you are because the rain is there.” Spoken like a true screenwriter! So I wonder if the critiques of Nolan as a director ought to focus more on his screenwriting instinct to hook a reader with a strong concept, immerse them in a unique story universe, surround them with distinctive characters, propel them through a plot that surges ahead sequence by sequence, creating a strong structural foundation, and tells -- in the end -- a whopping good story. In other words, are these critics who deride Nolan as a director missing the point? That his movies reveal he's a hell of a screenwriter?

BTW DAF, I meant to thank you for the Nolan quote and the Slate link. Excellent stuff as well as your observations.

@DAF: In that quote, Nolan--at least as far as I can understand it--is talking about the cross-cutting from location to location. In Inception, that's from the van falling in slow motion off the bridge to the winter James Bond shootout, for example. Right? I think the way he handled the structure of the last 40 minutes of Inception was fucking brilliant. Sitting in the IMAX theater watching that end sequence, I was literally floored. A masterpiece of modern filmmaking, that end piece to Inception. Definitely. And I would definitely think that all of that is constructed on purpose, and he's making conscious decisions on every level, there. I have the actual book of the screenplay that they released for Inception, and it comes with the plot diagram that Nolan drew up to keep track of the different dream levels throughout the film. It's terrifyingly complex and it just goes to show how assured he was in stringing that all together. That being said, that's not really what I was talking about. That's the bigger picture. I'm not talking about him cutting back and forth between locations/dream sequences, or in The Dark Knight's case, cutting between Batman and the Joker fighting and Harvey Dent/Rachel in the warehouses. I'm talking about how he shot individual action sequences. Like the chase scene that Emerson dissects. That, to me, is not an attempt of Nolan's to make some grand visual statement that parallels deep emotional themes that resonate throughout The Dark Knight. It's just...not the best-shot action sequence ever made. It doesn't make him an idiot or a failure, or any less of a masterful filmmaker, it's just a part of his filmmaking skill suite that's not quite as sharp as everything else. @Scott: For that specific Dark Knight chase scene, I really don't think it's his sensibilities as a screenwriter that are making him choose weird establishing shots/rhythms/edit patterns for his fight sequences. Like Emerson mentions, if you read those sequences on the page in his script, they're not really fleshed out. What's written is WAY less elaborate than what ends up in the movie. I think Nolan's handling of the writing of the end of Inception was stunning. We're in complete agreement, there! What I was mentioning about Inception had nothing to do with the writing, though. I was just saying that, as one example, the scene near the beginning where Ken Watanabe's castle thingy is falling apart and Leo's running through it shooting people, it's just...shot...less-than-stellar-ly. Nothing to do with the writing. What this really boils down to is that Nolan is an absolutely fantastic director. One of the best we have. And on every level, he's head and shoulders above most directors. When it comes to shooting action scenes, though, he's just that tiiiny bit behind the rest of his skillset. It just makes you realize exactly how hard it is to shoot big huge action set pieces. Which...The next time you sit down to watch Raiders of the Lost Ark or Terminator 2, just take a minute to appreciate how unbelievably good Spielberg and Cameron are with their cameras in action scenes. Two of the best all time, and for my money, the two current best action set piece directors alive.

One of the nice things about Emerson's video is that he restricts himself from making many sweeping statements about the merit of the film as a whole. Anyone who loves TDK is welcome to continue doing so - he says quite specifically that he's trying to explicate what some critics meant when they called the action "incoherent". The world loved TDK which means it did something incredibly well: I can't challenge that, nor does Emerson seem interested in doing so. I found it an incredibly disappointing film, however, and this action sequence was one of the first places I found myself becoming steadily, thoroughly emotionally disconnected from the story. I stopped caring. Emerson's video shows tons of the specific, technical things that I of course didn't notice consciously, but that DO explain the mechanics behind my experience. And I really appreciate that. Many people are mentioning the Bourne movies in relationship to this series, and it's important to note that there was a huge shift between the first film (directed by Doug Liman) and the latter two films (directed by Paul Greengrass). I loved the first film, but found myself alienated, cold, and ultimately bored by the second film. Greengrass's editing is -- I suspect -- less technically flawed than Nolan's, but based on a premise of being unanchored and deliberately disorienting. And without orientation, my connection to the characters waned. So: maybe you loved TDK. Might it not have been an even better film if it kept all the stuff you liked AND had really well-edited action scenes? I just don't understand the hostility.