Topic: Salt

[goodguy]

Jim Emerson (editor of rogerebert.com) explains why Salt is better than The Dark Knight. 
http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2011/09/in_the_cut_part_ii_a_dash_of_s.html

[Achim]

 

Points very well made. Although, he says himself that it doesn't make Dark Knight a bad film, it sure shows that the action sequence is a bt of a mess. I think I have seen it three times so far and have noticed any if it

I look forward to watching part 3 later.

[Najemikon]

I tried to watch the video on Dark Knight and gave up after five minutes. The guy is quite frankly a complete pillock who thinks waaaay too much of himself. The pretentious presentation, then the quotes from the guy he wants to dismantle, followed by such pedantic over analysis he misses the point considerably. Film-making is all about composition and cutting? Wow, get him. But to what end? Rhythm perhaps? Sustained mood? Emotional involvement? You can argue for days on end if you think Dark Knight has any of this and you're more than welcome to disagree and prefer something like Salt, but damn, your life just got very sad if you're down to comparing seconds of footage.

Nolan understands rhythm better than any other action director working in the mainstream today. The fluidity between scenes is superb in the Batman films and Inception. I don't like Salt, as you know, but I love Noyce's work in general, which is why I was so disappointed with Salt. He directed it like he was merely hired. It is a perfect action scene that he highlights. Too perfect, dispassionate and cold, contrived like a video game. And in any case it's in the middle of a very poor story. For the man who gave us Clear and Present Danger, this was unforgivable in my eyes. Perhaps I'm being picky? Shit, after seeing this jerks video, I don't even know what picky is any more!

I love how Emerson quotes Scorcese! Scorcese's work is littered with little "mistakes" because the rhythm of the whole is more important than the parts; he's got a great grounding in Italian Realism cinema where they felt it was important to not hide the cuts and even leave in accidents. If Mr Emerson analysed, say, Mamma Roma to this level his head would burst when he realised just how many of his precious rules had been broken. Like Nolan, I love Scorcese's work for how he sustains a heartbeat in the films.

I got annoyed when Emerson was trying to prove the image of Harvey Dent breaks the Reverse Angle rule and I turned it off as soon as he said that the Joker's brief, random appearance "achieves nothing". There are possible reasons for both of these choices, but he's so far up his own arse, he can't consider the possibility that Nolan and Lee Smith knew what they were doing.

Hell, maybe they didn't and actually did get lazy, while Noyce's clinical approach is perfect-o, A1 film-making 101! I don't know. But I do know I noticed a similar problem with that Dark Knight sequence and my first thought was, "what if...". His was, "I shall prove I'm right and Nolan's wrong". Interesting. Very interesting. Starts to explain why I've always been rather uncomfortable with Ebert's brash style of criticism.

[Achim]

I agree in that the narrator was quite biased and "wanted" to find the faults. But I agree that ceratain issues are there. The directional stuff was a bit too much (I was never disoriented myself), but I agree with some of his other points.

Jon, you are taking this too literal. He is not saying that The Dark Knight is a bad film for this and Salt is better, quite the contrary. He is merely pointing out that some of Nolan's action lacks clarity which Noyce's shows in almost every shot. At one point he literally says, that the video is not about debunking The Dark Knight, which he seems to think is actually a great film, but to make people understand why some reviewers said Nolan's action was messy.

[Najemikon]

It's precisely because he thinks he likes Dark Knight that I take exception to his analysis. I'd have more respect for him if he didn't like it at all and thought everyone else was mad for singing its praises. I've ran my mouth off often enough when I think a genuine gem is being overlooked for The Emperors New Clothes. That said, I would only go into his level of detail to promote a film I loved. I'd like to know why he felt so strongly about doing this, yet can still claim to like it. It isn't for a review, the scope of which could have summarised his thoughts into a single paragraph. And it isn't for the purposes of a discussion, such as we do here where we test theories against one another. He did it to look clever.

If you're going to so precisely over analyse one sequence from a film, with the intention of proving it's bad, then you'd better be damn sure of your position because you already look petty. To then go on and claim to like it, despite its faults that you just spent 20 minutes de-constructing? Wow. Really? No excuses. He's out of order.

What am I supposed to do? Bow to his superior intellect and admit how wrong I was and then thank him for being so gracious that he accepts it's enjoyable? If I could snort on the Internet, I would, so please assume I just did!

I probably feel about The Matrix the way he does about Dark Knight. I really like it, but I don't think it's even half as good as what most people seem to think it is, but beyond broad observations and encouraging people to watch Ghost In The Shell and spare a thought for Blade which pre-dated it, I keep quiet because I do like the film and don't even want to prove to myself why I have reservations. Here's the rub: I might be wrong about The Matrix, so those who genuinely enjoy it and can talk about it, have more of a right than I do to analyse it.

I enjoy listening to someone who is passionate about a film that I don't actually like so much or even understand (Jimmy could probably convince me to try Last House On The Left again because he is confident about why he likes it). It's far more enriching than listening to someone trying to prove a film you like isn't as good as you thought. Especially when they claim to like it as well! That's just odd.

By the way, I should say that although this guy has genuinely pissed me off, I don't blame Matthias for posting it. At least he's honest about not liking Nolan's work.

[Achim]

He did it to look clever.

What am I supposed to do? Bow to his superior intellect and admit how wrong I was and then thank him for being so gracious that he accepts it's enjoyable? If I could snort on the Internet, I would, so please assume I just did!

I see where you are coming from and particularly those to points above I agree with.

I was surprised myself that he took 20minutes for Batman but only 10 for Salt So, let's stop talk about him now

[goodguy]

I tried to watch the video on Dark Knight and gave up after five minutes.

I only zapped through that one too, albeit probably for different reasons.  Also, if memory serves me right (and if he doesn't suddenly say differently in the clip), Jim Emerson never liked TDK - it was Roger Ebert who raved about it.