"Plus, Emerson sounds like a prick." I wish my teachers let me use that as evidence in a critical essay. I do think some things that bother Emerson aren't a huge deal. The inside the van stuff never bothered me. And it seems to flow left to right the entire time. The lack of a two shot isn't a huge deal. I do think he nails some of the major problems. My personal biggest problem with that scene is the introduction of the Batmobile. It is from a head on angle. There is also little reference of other cars or location. It makes it very difficult to tell whether the Batmobile is behind the convoy chasing to catch up -- or in front of it on a collision course. Simply introducing it in profile right to left, against the convoy's left to right would have been enough. Also, the Swat van (in terms of reality) goes into the river on the wrong side. What helps sell it, is that the motion is right to left of the previous shots. This is one of those odd instances where it never "feels" wrong as the motion is in the right direction but the subconscious of the keener eyed flag it as an impossibility. Emerson correctly points out -- that the shot in which we see the initial hit between the SWAT van and the semi truck, the screen direction is going the wrong way -- right to left. The irony of arguing this -- is if the truck had simply hit on the driver's side, not only would the screen direction be correct, but the flying out into the river would have been as well. No need for visual trickery at all. I also think Emerson brings up some great points on what he terms "chaos cinema." The best example of what he is talking about is the Quantum of Solace chase sequence. It's a mess. The whole movie is. And he's correct with it being a modern thing as well. It is! I'd take the argument one step further and say it is solely a result of digital editing. It's too easy to overcut a scene. While the scene may or may not work for you in the final cut -- I think the real question is -- WHY was it even shot like that in the first place? Months of pre-production and storyboards. It's not like this was a guerrilla shoot and they're hoping the pieces they shot fit together in post. They had storyboards even. The whole point of storyboards is to be able to visualize the scene before shooting it. That way you can PLAN out your shoot with a specific visual plan. You can keep screen directions consistent. You can match eyelines. I also have a problem with The Joker firing the rocket. It doesn't look like he's aiming at the cop car in the front. It looks like he's aiming at the SWAT van. And then the cop car blows up. Mistakes like that are really either the fault of the director or editor. And I'm leaning towards director, considering the SWAT van river shot and having no coverage inside the tunnel to match it is solely the director's fault. The Dark Knight is a great film. It's one of the best films to come around in a long time. It's not a perfect film though.

Although I didn't like the movie that much, I thought that sequence worked just fine. Who cares if you break a rule and a sequence gets more intense or exciting?

I honestly can't believe how much traction this scene with the van going into the river has received. Van going north, camera facing south, semi comes from the east, van goes into river facing west. WTF?? Maybe it's off a little but but come on... In terms of Emerson, I'm sorry but I think any critic that hasn't actually made a film can go suck balls. Big hairy ones. What gives you the f'in right to critique something that you haven't EVER done? At least Ebert wrote Valley of the Dolls! It's just so easy to throw rocks when you haven't been on a set for 16 hours, it's midnight, the line producer is pulling his hair out, the actors refuse to leave their trailer, the crew is talking about turnaround, etc. etc. etc. Do they even have an inkling what that's like? I highly doubt it... Chaos cinema? Lick balls...

"What gives you the f'in right to critique something that you haven't EVER done?" That's a bit strong, don't you think? You're telling me you've never read an article about sports/books/movies/art/food/restaurants/political figures/historical figures/wars/science/history/pop culture/basically anything ever and NOT had this reaction? And this on a blog about screenwriting? Which is people making up stories about things they've probably never done?

@ Nick -- It's not about breaking rules to make things more exciting. In most cases, it tends to be less exciting because it knocks the viewer out of the scene, it's harder to tell what's going on, which results in not really knowing what's at stake. For example -- there's no tension or suspense when the Batmobile comes in and saves the day. Because we had no idea it was even on a collision course to save the day in the first place. Likewise, the SWAT van having to swerve to avoid the Batmobile has no tension either, because we only realize it was a problem AFTER the action has already occurred.

"In terms of Emerson, I’m sorry but I think any critic that hasn’t actually made a film can go suck balls. Big hairy ones. What gives you the f’in right to critique something that you haven’t EVER done?" You don't need to be a filmmaker to be a good critic. In truth, filmmakers have often been lousy critics, and critics would probably make lousy filmmakers. The task of criticism is so very different than the task of creation (the attitudes associated with criticism can actually impede the creative process). Art-making is giving birth. Criticism is surgery.

Again, I was not a huge fan of The Dark Knight. However, as I watched it, that sequence was very exciting. I think it worked.

I enjoyed that very much! I don't think Emerson was being a prick. I appreciated his use of terminology. Especially sensation without orientation. Very applicable. I'm talking to you 3D.

Let me first by saying that I believe Christopher Nolan to be an amazing filmmaker who has had a great impact on American Cinema in just the past couple of years. I feel that everyone is entitled to their own opinion about film, which is what makes film a remarkable field to commentate on. Jim Emerson does support his claim with valid points on how the sequence may seem confusing. I see the sequence as an action sequence that is trying to express to the viewer the predicament that the characters are in by having rough transition shots.