The Dark Knight

I recently watched The Dark Knight and it was good, up to a point. While the story was interesting and the acting good (especially Heath Ledger as The Joker, who was fabulous - truly scary) I was a bit dismayed by the direction, as I am with a lot of movies these days. The furious editing in modern movies, especially in action films like The Dark Knight, is so lightning fast that it's hard for the viewer to catch his or her breath. The camera almost never lingers on a shot for more than a second or two, even during calmer moments. During the most intense scenes it's impossible to tell what is really happening on the screen. You get the point - these movies are never subtle - but I defy anyone to tell me actual details of what went on during the action scenes, other than to acknowledge that a lot of things blew up. At the end you feel like you've been holding your breath for two hours. And your brain is muddled, wondering what exactly just went on. I suppose this is considered the new style in Hollywood, and it's certainly aimed at the younger crowd with limited attention spans, but to us old folks it is disconcerting. To those of us who value movies with lucid storytelling, fully-rounded characters, and even-handed rhythm and pacing, these movies are less satisfying than they could be. With good material like The Dark Knight, we get the impression that the moviemakers missed an opportunity. With other, lesser movies, you have a sneeking suspicion that those in charge are using these editing techniques to cover up the limitations of the script.

A case in point, the three Bourne movies. The first one had the strongest story but was directed by Doug Liman in a less manic manner. I found it thoroughly enjoyable. Then Paul Greengrass, one of the leading autuers of this new style, took over the direction duties for the second and third Bourne movies. Now, I think Greengrass is a terrific talent. If you haven't seen United 93 yet, get thee over to Netflix post haste. And I also like both Bourne movies that he directed. But it must be acknowledged than by the third one there really was no story to tell except "Get Jason Bourne." If Greengrass had reverted to more conventional methods of making these movies the weaknesses of the scripts would be glaringly obvious. So he was probably the perfect director for them: his lightning-quick pacing provided cover for the non-story. And he was able to make them enjoyable, if, as I noted above, a bit disconcerting. So the style has its place, if only as camouflage.

Now, there have always been directors in Hollywood who were noted for being professional craftsmen, who could take a dud of a script and make a somewhat interesting movie out of it. But I get the sense that Greengrass wants more than this out of his career - he's much too talented to be satisfied fluffing up material with little or no substance. While it may be the case that its the only trick he has in his bag, I doubt it. For him and all the other slap-dash artists out there I'd offer some advice: slow down. Let some air into the movie, give us some time to contemplate what you're presenting. Let us breath, and think.