EDITOR'S NOTE: Press Play is proud to present Part II of Jim Emerson's In The Cut series. In this piece he deconstructs an action sequence from Phillip Noyce's 2010 hit Salt to highlight compositions, camera movements, editing and spatial awareness. We have included the full, uninterrupted scene so the viewer can compare Jim's analysis with the finished product.
By Jim Emerson
Press Play Contributor
Realism, as usual, is simply a fig leaf for doing what you want. Virtually any technique can be justified as realistic according to some conception of what’s important in the scene. If you shoot the action cogently, with all the moves evident, that’s realistic because it shows you what’s 'really' happening. If you shoot it awkwardly, that presentation is 'realistically' reflecting what a participant perceives or feels. If you shoot it as 'chaos' (another description that Nobles applies to the Expendables action scenes)—well, action feels chaotic when you’re in it, right? Forget the realist alibi. What do you want your sequence to do to the viewer? — David Bordwell, Observations on film art (September 15, 2010)
In Part I of In the Cut we looked at part of an action sequence from The Dark Knight and examined many questions, ambiguities and incongruities raised by the ways shots were composed and cut together. In Part II, we delve into a chase sequence from Phillip Noyce's Salt (2010) that uses a lot of today's trendy "snatch-and-grab" techniques (quick cutting, shaky-cam, but very few abstract-action cutaways — I spotted one doozy, but I didn't mention it; see if you notice it). And yet, there's very little that isn't perfectly understandable in the moment.
There are certain directors I think of as "one-thing-at-a-time" filmmakers. That is, they seem to be incapable of composing shots that have more than one piece of information in them at a time. This makes for a very flat, rather plodding style. You see what the camera is pointed at in each shot, but you get very little sense of perspective when it comes to relating it to other elements in the scene. Noyce's technique is much more fluid, organic and sophisticated. He keeps things from one shot visible in the next, even when shifting perspective — whether it's only a few feet or clear across several lanes of traffic.
In Part I: A Shot in the Dark (Knight) I asked (rhetorically) whether the techniques used made the action more exciting or just more confusing. I left the question unanswered because it's something viewers are going to have to decide for themselves. And, as usual in criticism, the goal is not to find the "right" answers but to raise the relevant questions. Noyce himself raised a good one when he said he thinks viewers are not looking for coherence but for visceral experiences. And yet, his filmmaking is quite coherent (grammatically, if not "realistically"). "Visceral," like "realism," is in the eye of the beholder.
That is why I also wanted to mention the quotation from David Bordwell at the top of this intro (and near the beginning of the video essay). Arguments made in the name of "realism" are susceptible to subjective interpretations. Whether a film is classical or impressionistic, employing long shots or close ups, extended takes or quick cuts, each of these choices has effects on the viewer (including the critic) and that's what we try to notice, describe, understand and assess.
Finally, let me quote critic , who said: "One can summarize a plot in one sentence, whereas it’s fairly difficult to summarize one frame." That's not only a fascinating statement about the nature of film, it hints at a kind of "close reading" approach to criticism that was previously available only to scholars with access to film libraries and Movieolas. Now we can pause, rewind, slow down and otherwise examine films — shot by shot, even frame by frame — in video essays shared over the Internet. Amazing.
You can watch Jim Emerson's deconstruction of The Dark Knight here. Coming soon: In the Cut Part III: I Left My Heart in My Throat in San Francisco, which looks at Don Siegel's 1958 filmThe Lineup. Emerson is a Seattle-based writer, critic, editor, blogger, video essayist, gardener and pedant. He is the founding editor of RogerEbert.com, where he also maintains his blog, Scanners.
Press Play Video Blog 
(sorry this is a year late… jus saw these videos)
This all boils down to two undeniable realities: 1) When it comes to telling stories, there is no such thing as an "action flick," because all great stories are about characters; and 2) film making is a collaborative art, and the director's choices for how to shoot an action scene don't really matter if the script's characters are not compelling.
Action scenes in SALT are not as good as TDK because SALT's characters are not as fully developed. SALT's conflicts are superficial– they do not originate from true, inner character, nor from intentional, character-driven choices.
LikeLike
Excellent work, Jim. Your nuanced insight reminds me of the foot chase scene that introduces Popeye and Cloudy in “The French Connection.” Talk about realism! I always marvel at the furiously existential intensity and gritty simplicity of three guys pounding and puffing down the sidewalk. I love how Friedkin and editor Jerry Greenberg lobbed in the abrupt shift of movement from right to left as the cops and criminal cross the street at full stride. It’s ingeniously jarring and makes perfect spatial sense thanks to one simple shot (not three or five). Keep ’em coming jeem!!
LikeLike
Part 2:
Another point: To me, the clarity of the scene in which all the agents converge on Salt at the overpass is precisely the problem with the scene itself and the film as a whole. Even at that point we’ve seen enough to realize that Salt is a Jason Bourne-esque super agent. So it’s dramatically stupid that after scrambling for her life she would then wait patiently behind a car, totally exposed, and give time for numerous characters to (1) close in on her, (2) surround her and (3) comfortably aim their weapons at her. Furthermore, it’s even more absurd that from that position Salt could take at least three steps back (the editing makes it look like one, a cheat) and roll over the edge of the overpass while only ONE person gets off a shot. See, here the clarity of the established spatial relationships hurts the film. The scenario that’s set up (count ’em, at least six guns on Salt, all at close range) is totally ignored in the subsequent action shot. Chaos would have helped this scene, giving us some way of convincing ourselves that Salt’s escape (with only ONE shot being fired) somehow makes sense. Instead, the threat of six guns on Salt disappears like the cop car in TDK — only this time, the thing that disappears is, in theory, the focus of the scene.
Can we follow what’s happening in Salt? Yes. Can we explain the movements of the pieces? Yes. But the direction in which the van hits the water in TDK is, dramatically speaking, inconsequential (even while I agree it’s sloppy filmmaking): we might be confused, and confusion can take one out of the action (which isn’t good), but we should still understand the crux of what’s going on: a chase in confined space that can only travel one direction (even if a stray shot or two implies otherwise). In Salt, the entire drama is built around the idea that the people chasing Salt are willing to shoot her and that Salt must do whatever it takes to avoid that. So, dramatically speaking, that Salt allows herself to be surrounded and that those in pursuit don’t fire are both huge problems that fundamentally betray what the scene is supposed to be about. And that’s precisely what makes the ensuing action atop the semis feel like stunts, gags.
LikeLike
Part 1:
I can’t remember if I said this in my previous comments on the analysis of TDK, but even if I did it’s worth repeating: these essays are great (even when I don’t agree with them) — precisely the kind of detailed video analysis that has me so excited about the ongoing potential for Press Play. So deep thanks, and kudos!
Now about the piece …
Jim: As you might recall, I found Salt absurd and underwhelming, and I think those two go together. Part of the problem is what Craig describes below: the personality-free craftsmanship. Another part is summed up nicely by Drugpunk: “my girlfriend didn’t like the script so she didn’t pay attention to the action scenes because she didn’t see the point.” That’s close to how I felt. Salt, to me, is an endless parade of scenes that through the rapid cutting (not as rapid as TDK, but not far off) and an energetic score make me feel like I should be excited by the action … and yet there’s so little personality in the action, so little investment in the drama, that I felt nothing at all. The scene from Salt that you’ve analyzed actually works better outside the film itself, because we haven’t had to snicker at the sight of Salt running with her arms pumping above her head in an effort to look fast (it doesn’t work) or dealt with any of the film’s other absurdities.
As for the specific analysis: First let me make the general statement that I think you’re giving the benefit of the doubt to Salt in places where you weren’t as generous to TDK. We can agree that the van-into-the-water shot in TDK is a pure failure and that the window-in-the-foreground shot in Salt is inspired, but both films have not-quite-right POV shots that accomplish the same thing, and both films have shots that aren’t exactly justified (Salt seeing the semi, the van disappearing in the shot of the Batmobile’s leap in TDK), and yet with Salt you seem to think it’s no big deal, and with TDK it’s an instrument of confusion. I don’t mean to imply that you’re being disingenuous. Rather, I mean to point out that when one breaks down both films, we find that Salt has some of the same elements that bother you in TDK, which just goes to show that whether a scene is chaotic or not doesn’t always come down to what the film actually shows us, what’s in the frame and what’s out. You say a few times of Salt that we “see” it happen, so it works. But when I watch TDK, I “see” the semi make a right turn through the van and into the next lane of traffic, while you see the semi take some magic-bullet trajectory that I admit I still don’t understand. In both cases, I don’t really “see” the full right turn in TDK any more or less than you really “see” how Salt spots the oncoming semi. So, again, maybe what these analyses show us is how much our comprehension of action isn’t so much tied to technique but audience POV: what are we looking for. Steven Santos, for example, is looking to figure out how all these characters keep coming together, while you’re focused on Salt. Neither viewpoint is “wrong,” but whether the filmmaker succeeds or fails depends on a mutual understanding about what the filmmaker is or should be trying to do, and that’s rare.
LikeLike
I liked the drama in “Salt”, so the action worked for me, but my girlfriend didn’t like the script so she didn’t pay attention to the action scenes because she didn’t see the point. My brother, on the other hand, loves Batman, and thinks The Joker is the most evil person ever, so he was all pins and needles while watching “The Dark Night”; although, he was so scared sometimes he had to look away from some of the intense action scenes. My mother only likes love stories, so when I made her watch these two films she got a headache. But I also have a friend who liked both films, which just confuses me.
LikeLike
Jim:
I wasn’t necessarily trying to say that the scenes are exactly the same, as trying to demonstrate how the shots are chosen and cut in relation to each other to serve a similar dramatic purpose. It’s why the “Salt” scene doesn’t work because I, and apparently others, feel disconnected and uninvolved in the action. There was a general lack of urgency because the shots of the car with Ejiofor and Schreiber racing on the freeway intercut with Jolie jumping seemed cut together to serve an action beat rather than a dramatic beat. Again, a better sense of direction and space and where Ejiofor and Schreiber are in relation to Jolie established earlier would make this scene feel less inert to me. Then, the scene actually builds to the moment where they wind up in the same place and makes it feel less like a coincidence, which this scene has way too many of already.
LikeLike
Thank you so much for dissecting this scene. Although I am not a great fan of his movies I have to admit that Philip Noyce does know how to stage an action scene. The motorcade ambush scene in ‘Clear and present danger’ is a masterpiece in this regard. http://movieclips.com/sUqX-clear-and-present-danger-movie-motorcade-ambush/
LikeLike
Jim, I’m glad you enjoyed the action sequences in Casino Royale as much as I did – they also serve to illuminate just how terrible the editing is in Quantum Of Solace, too! (The opening car chase in that film, which never allows us to appreciate what was probably some pretty impressive choreography, is such a wasted opportunity.) Thanks for these videos, by the way; it really is a relief to see some people have the guts to come out and say that current trends in action filmmaking are simply ineptitude dressed up as ‘realism’. Anyone who dares to say it generally just gets dismissed as being out-of-touch or over the hill, but you provide the evidence to the contrary…
LikeLike
Steven: Thanks for that clip from “The Fugitive.” That kind of foot chase (on a staircase where the characters are moving at relatively slow speeds and are never very far from each other) would make an interesting study in editing too, but it’s quite different from a freeway chase.
You write: “It also doesn’t help that good actors like Schreiber and Ejiofor seem to barely contain their disinterest and Jolie doesn’t express emotions on film that ever resemble a human being. Sort of beside the point, but not really, as the editor is instrumental in shaping the performances, something else not brought up in these discussions about the editing process.” Also, a good point — and the subject for something other than the specific focus of these essays.
Matt: That parkour-inspired foot chase up the crane in “Casino Royale” is one of the most breathtaking action scenes I’ve seen in recent years.
LikeLike
Nice contribution, Steven. Your comment holds true for the early chase scene in No Country for Old Men, when Moss has to outrun a jeep and a dog.
And, yes, I loved that freeway foot chase in Tell No One.
LikeLike
I agree with Craig that Casino Royale – with Martin Campbell’s perfect balance of grit and classicism – would have been a better example to use than Salt, largely because it’s actually a good film with interesting characters.
LikeLike
First off, I have not seen “Salt”, so what I have to say will be more reliant on technique than the content/context in which this scene takes place. I watched the scene and then the analysis. To be honest, I was underwhelmed by the filmmaking. First off, how she spots the truck feels more like an element that comes out of nowhere than, say, the truck that rams the armored car in “Dark Knight”.
From that point on, the conception and editing of the sequence seems to exhibit a bigger and largely ignored problem of filmmaking today, which is cutting with a micro mindset, as opposed to macro mindset. The jumps themselves are decently executed, but how they connect to one another, as well as the car that Schreiber/Ejiofor are in seems to pop up in different places on this freeway, whose loops and turns are never laid out clearly enough to generate the proper suspense in the sequence. That may be why it feels lackadaisical and the jumps themselves seem lacking in purpose. It’s appropriate that you refer to these moments as gags because they don’t seem to be cut or shot to serve a dramatic purpose. That may explain why several have already noted that while the film may follow rules of clean action filmmaking, but the “who gives a shit?” seems to be getting in their way of their appreciation. Workmanlike, but uninspired. It also doesn’t help that good actors like Schreiber and Ejiofor seem to barely contain their disinterest and Jolie doesn’t express emotions on film that ever resemble a human being. Sort of beside the point, but not really, as the editor is instrumental in shaping the performances, something else not brought up in these discussions about the editing process.
The funny thing is that, at least, with “The Dark Knight” scene, there seemed to be a purpose despite the iffy filmmaking, especially in the second half of the scene which you didn’t cover, where there is only three vehicles left, which is about enough for Nolan to finally keep track of them more clearly. But, from what I saw, in this scene, was lacking direction. The suspense is whether the Schreiber/Ejiofor car can reach Jolie, yet the scene is staged and cut without purpose. When Ejiofor points to Jolie, the first question on my mind was how the hell did they wind up in almost the same place at the same time? Or perhaps, why wasn’t the scene staged and cut in a way that connects Schreiber/Ejiofor with Jolie beyond their random driving fast shots (Why are they going in the direction they’re going?) and her jumping? That, perhaps, would have actually made this scene dramatically compelling as a standalone scene.
Take this scene from “The Fugitive”, which has a similar premise, man chasing innocent person accused of crime (it should link to the start time and lasts about 4 minutes):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9gCq04OBFc&t=4m17s
See how better and more dramatically it is staged. Why? Every shot and cut connects Ford to Jones and vice versa even when the scene starts with each of them by themselves and then moves their chase into areas with more people. That scene never loses focus like the one in “Salt” where each side (Schreiber/Ejiofor & Jolie) seem to be in their own space until, Voila!, they wind up in the same space. A problem I have with many action scenes in that it seems to be a functioning set piece that serves as a beat, but no sense of suspense or urgency. If the dramatic purpose of the scene is these two chasing Salt and she tries to evade them by jumping trucks, then just cutting back and forth between her stunts and shots of them driving fast (those low angle shaky-cam shots of their car are sort sub-Nolan) really just didn’t cut it for me. Perhaps, I wished the scene served the drama rather than the gags in its shot selections and editing.
LikeLike
Excellent. I do want to say that I watched the full clip before your explanation, and I definitely saw the fork before the first jump. To use your language, it was placed in the earlier shots that her truck (following the cop car) was about to take the exit ramp while the next lane over (with the tanker) was going to continue straight. You can even see the fork clearly in some of the lead-up shots, though you’re right that it could have been made clearer *through* the jumping shots.
LikeLike
I didn’t really like either SALT or THE DARK KNIGHT. However, it strikes me that TDK’s confusing composition may be intentional on the part of C Nolan. (I say this as no fan of Nolan’s.) A little confusion can have a positive effect on a narrative, after all — see LOST, certain works of Samuel Beckett, Robert Aickman, Haruki Murakami, etc — and in the case of TDK, this confusion keeps the viewer on his/her toes: it doesn’t let them slow down to think. If a viewer slowed down, after all it may become clear to him that this so-called “realistic” comic book movie is implausible and paper-thin. This constant near-incoherence is one of the ways Nolan’s Gotham City improves on Tim Burton’s — In Burton’s world, you had time to examine the plot, the characters, the setting, and therefore time to realize the whole concept of Batman was as shallow, superficial, and ridiculous as Sgt Kabukiman. Nolan keeps things moving along and refuses to let the pieces sync up. As my dad used to say, If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit, and Nolan’s made a career (so far) out of doing just that.
LikeLike
Fantastic series! Thank you. I thought the Swat truck was spun around, to me it felt natural. I would love it if you took a James Cameron sequence and explored it. As a regular old movie viewer, I’ve always thought him to be the best at this sort of thing.
LikeLike
I clearly see the difference in the way these action sequences were put together. TDK had a more “comic book” feel all the way through, while Salt felt more like drama/action film thriller. But as films, TDK succeeds and Salt does not. I didn’t even re-watch it when it was offered free on NF.
However, could the argument be made that TDK could have been even better had the camera work/film editing been better? Salt would not improve no matter how it’s recut because the story is crap. But perhaps TDK could have transcended the comic book feel, if the camera/editing….
Armed with new tools, I’m going to review one of my favorite chase scenes in the Bourne Supremacy–the one where Bourne runs down the street to catch a train but has to catch a boat first.
Even in mentioning that scene, I think a key element may be wit. There’s little that’s witty in the Salt’s chase scene; it’s pedestrian. But even with the flaws in TDK, the director has supplied some surprising, crowd pleasing moments–a dash of wit here and there. In the Bourne Supremacy, the wit is how Bourne is utterly realistic about his escape even though he has to resort to mad skillz moves–he runs to the train station, reads the schedule, then checks his watch (lol). Even with the boat detour, he still ends up on that train. The first time I saw that sequence, I had to stand up, it was so exciting.
LikeLike
Craig, I think you are right to an extent that some of the praise for SALT, including by myself, was exagerrated by coming out the week after INCEPTION and doing action that much better. However, I think Jim’s point still stands that just because the stakes of an action scene may be more interesting, that can’t make up for lousy filmmaking that doesn’t allow us to invest in those stakes. The point of an action sequence in any major Hollywood film is to allow the spectator to “see” the action, and to do that creating spatial continuity so the viewer can follow the action.
Consider the extremely baffling “snow level” sequence in INCEPTION. where I couldn’t tell who was trying to do what at all, except that because Zimmer’s score is blasting on all levels, I know this must be important. On a filmmaking level, that scene is failed by the overuse of white snow that makes it impossible to know where anyone–good or bad–is in relation to each other. Not only that, I had no idea what the point of the sequence is until the end of the scene when all the action is over. Leo and co need to get Cillian Murphy in the fortress to do…what exactly? We know it after the scene is over, but when it starts it’s so confusing what anyone is planning to do. It is part of the surprise, but because the narrative is so painstakingly set up in making sure that you know exactly what the world is that I don’t understand what the stake of any of these characters is. How am I supposed to care during that sequence when I firstly have no idea what the characters are trying to acheive, and secondly because I can’t tell what any of them are doing since the filmmaking doesn’t set up their relations?
SALT may be derrivative of pretty much every spy thriller of the last ten years, but its clearly sets up the goals of its protagonist and her relation to this action sequence. There aren’t any tertiary characters, no cut aways to the drivers of the trucks, we stick with Salt and the agents. It’s simple, but it’s also grounded in keeping the stakes and our relation to our characters set up without bloating anything.
The truth is unlike Nolan, Noyce doesn’t get to nitpick with his scripts that much–he’s a gun for hire–so when he is able to deliver solid action and get a good performance out of Jolie in what otherwise should be a generic action picture, that is commendable. And what makes this sequence particularly great, as Jim points out, is that it has a sense of realism and actual stunt work being done, and we can see it clearly happening (Jim’s note on the shadow is a great example).
Yes we want original scripts that attempt to say something new or different, and certainly the second I walked out of SALT I wasn’t really thinking about patriotism or anything. However, when I walk into a summer Hollywood action film like SALT, I want to see a good fun story and clear action that let’s me follow that story. I remember another filmmaker who wanted to do a cheesy throw back to those bad adventure period films from the 1930s/1940s. That film is RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK
LikeLike
Sorry, I goofed: “Salt” came out a week after “Inception,” not “The Dark Knight.” (Only seems like three years instead of one.) Same point, different Nolan picture.
LikeLike
Jim, your video essay does effectively demonstrate how the compositions in the chase scene in “Salt” are put together better than the one in “The Dark Knight.” There’s only one problem: I don’t give a damn what happens in any of it. Part of this lies in what Brendon, commenting on your previous essay, called the script level. (Salt’s line about assassinating the Russian president is a groaner that carries through the entire sequence.) Part of it, though, lies in the technique itself. Paul Brunick’s review: “Director Phillip Noyce’s style is of the kind that critics reliably describe as ‘craftsmanlike,’ which is a nice way of saying that it has zero personality…. Salt’s high-stakes pursuits and shoot-it-out confrontations are so pro forma and perfunctory that they’re really pretty tedious.” Salt’s final leap from the large truck to the small one is nicely staged, but it’s definitely not the “killer showstopper” that Brunick accurately notes Noyce seems to be setting up without following through.
“Salt” came out a week after “The Dark Knight,” and some of us who found it tired and half-baked were surprised by the number of critics who panned Nolan’s picture coming out for Noyce’s as an example of How To Make An Action Flick. I’m not doubting the sincerity of “Salt” fans, but the praise for that film seemed inflated in proportion to the mass popularity of the Batman movie. I don’t think we need to look far for counterpoint: The action set-pieces in “Casino Royale,” or the freeway foot chase in “Tell No One,” come to mind as far worthier examples of the kind of craftsmanship you’re talking about.
LikeLike
I ‘m loving these videos. That is all.
LikeLike
Well done! It should be pointed out that most of the shots containing the Capitol and Washington Monument are comps, as most of the sequence wasn’t shot in DC. Its a little easier to convince the viewer that continuity and spatial relations exist, when you can make them exist anyway you want. I’m not complaining…it is a film after all. But “realism” still needs to be taken with a grain of salt (sorry, couldn’t help myself).
LikeLike