Explanation of Short Film "Newsreal"

In my Canadian Experimental Film and Video class we were given the option to create an experimental film or video as an end project and provide an accompanying 5-page explanation.

Here is a link to my video "Newsreal"



And here is a variation of my final paper:

Digital technology has been hailed for the popular access that it provides to various forms of art and communication. It is also hailed for its enhancements in narrative storytelling, cartography, space exploration, anatomical record, and military mapping. (Mitchell, 3-10) This praise of the digital medium has also been met with considerable criticism. While this technology allows a new freedom in imagery, it comes with the sacrifice of the indexicality of the image and its ontological properties. The very binary composition of digital imagery, while accommodating layered manipulation, nullifies the ontology of the image. My experimental video Newsreal (2008) reflects on this notion through my wilful manipulation of digital imagery for the purposes of indicating the instable concept of ontology found in the digital image.

To compliment the analysis of this film it would be beneficial to refer to the theories of Lev Manovich. Digital technology has been revered for its advancements in storytelling traditions (with video games for example), yet Manovich insists on condemning the privilege that narrative receives during discussions of digital cinema. Digital technology may provide means of advancement in the story-telling tradition, however it violates certain revered philosophies of photography and conventional cinema. One of the defining principles of conventional cinematic processes is that cinema stresses “the aura of reality ‘captured’ on film.” (Manovich, 299) That is to say that the basic ingredient of traditional cinema is reality, organized and configured for the exposure and “capturing” onto celluloid. The images on the film are impressions of what existed at one time, in one form or another. As Manovich articulates, “Cinema is the art of the index; it is an attempt to make art of a footprint.” (Manovich, 295) Similarly, William Mitchell tastefully describes the photographic image as “fossilized light.” (Mitchell, 24) With the digitization of the image, whether through 3D computer animation or the digitization of live-action footage, the traditional cinematic image not only loses its indexical relationship with reality but also loses its privilege as the only material from which motion-pictures can be produced. The common material of digital imagery what Manovich refers to as the “pixel”, but could more accurately be identified as the binary digit. The reduction of the motion-picture to a series of androgynous digits or pixels increases its plasticity. This plasticity renders the “given truth” of the photographic image obsolete. Without indexicality, an image does not bear an existential bond with its referent, and therefore is no longer reliable as an ontological representation of reality.

The purpose of Newsreal is not to condemn digital imagery for its lack of ontology. The purpose is merely to indicate towards this philosophy and its relationship with digital imagery. The film is comprised of three parts: A war newsreel, an advertisement, and a magic show. The idea was for the film to take the form of the various clips that would have been shown before a theatrical film screening in the 1940s. I chose this period for its distinct aesthetic (for I intended to emulate it) and for the period’s imagery anchoring in indexical representation of reality. Each in its own way, the segments comment on the manipulability of the digital, and how reality becomes only a small factor in the material constructs of the digital image. Generally, I used digital filters to modify the video so that it was sepia toned. Another digital filter makes the video appear as though it was actually being projected on aged film, complete with simulated scratches on the celluloid. Additional projector and phonograph sound-effects further the film-viewing illusion. This use of digital technology immediately attempts to deceive the viewer into thinking that what they’re seeing is photographic, and therefore indexical to reality. In actuality, the raw footage in the video has passed through multiple digitization processes. All footage (whether “real” or computer engineered) was mediated through a Panasonic digital camcorder. In the case of the magic show, which was originally recorded photographically, I recorded the footage from YouTube, which is itself a digital platform.

The first segment in the film is a found-footage video collage imitating a WWII newsreel. I recorded the (digital) audio from a British news reel depicting WWII aerial raids from YouTube. I then proceeded to collect footage of various flight and war simulation video games with my digital camcorder. The games include Star Fox 64 (1997), StarCraft (1998), Body Harvest (1998), Wing Commander (1990), and Axelay (1992). I then replaced the authentic WWII footage with my newly captured, digitally constructed, video game footage, also adding in an orchestrated soundtrack. The effect is a seemingly authentic newsreel consisting entirely of computer-engineered imagery. I was able to digitally manipulate artificially-produced contemporary imagery in a way that seems period authentic, and indexical to reality. This is evidence of what Mitchell calls the mutability of the digital image. What he refers to is the rapid manipulation of digital information through the simplistic alteration of digits. “The mutability of digital data” says Manovich, “impairs the value of cinema recordings as documents of reality.” (Manovich, 307)



The second segment of the video is razor advertisement. The advertisement also stands as a metaphor. While the advertisement is attempting to sell razors, it never shows the actual razor, the razor in action, or even the effects of the razor. So while you are meant to believe that this razor is worthwhile (since we are told it is), you never see why you must believe in its proficiency. The only visual cues that support the razor’s proficiency are found-footage intellectual montages of CGI sequences from Hollywood blockbusters such as The Incredibles (2004) and Star Wars: Episode III: Revenge of the Sith (2005) which signify the act of shaving. All in all, there is nothing in this segment that is concretely indexical to the razor or its performance. One would not buy a product which they have not seen, and yet audiences accept illusions of CGI as believable representation of reality.



The magic show sequence is not only significant to this thesis in form, but also metaphorically. After all, performed magic can be seen as an illusory play which deceives viewers into believing what they see is real. The announcer emphasizes this by declaring, “If you don’t think seeing is believing, here’s a performer that will prove it!” Similarly, digital imagery creates illusory reality through manipulated presentation. In keeping with the theme of Newsreal, I decided to take a further step and manipulate the actual footage of the magic show. In order to emphasize the lack of ontology in the digital image I superimposed an animated clip of Winston Churchill’s face over-top of the magician’s. Thus, it is Winston Churchill’s magic show, and the digital effects employed force audiences to except it as the given truth of the image. This superimposition of digitally animated imagery over raw footage supports Lev Manovich’s claim that ontological footage becomes only one building element in a layering process when cinematic process becomes digital. Manovich adds that “cinema can no longer be clearly distinguished from animation. It is no longer an indexical media technology but, rather, a subgenre of painting.” (Manovich, 295) In a welcomed coincidental irony during the magic show, the narrator reassures the audience that “these pictures...are continuous and there are no camera tricks.”



As proven by the above examples, Newsreal reflects on this notion that the very binary composition of digital imagery, while accommodating layered manipulation, nullifies the ontology of the image. Through my wilful manipulation of digital imagery Newsreal indicates the instable concept of ontology found in the digital image. Thus, while this digital technology allows a new freedom in imagery, it comes with the sacrifice of the indexicality of the image and its ontological properties.

Bibliography:
- Mitchell, William J. The Reconfigured Eye : Visual Truth in the Post-photographic Era. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1994.
- Manovich, Lev. “Digital Cinema and the History of a Moving Image: Cinema the Art of the Index”, The Language of New Media. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2001

Meta-Fiction in the Controls of Metal Gear Solid 2

With the semester’s essays completed, I spent a good part of the past week playing through Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty (I’ve heard good things of the series in general and wanted to see for myself). I’ll have to admit that it took me a long time to become even remotely comfortable with games controls (I’ve never been a fan of the PS controller) and even now I’m not entirely sold on them. At points I found that one of the main challenges presented to me were navigating with these controls. In reflection of my previous blog entry, I tried to figure out why I found these controls so difficult and frustrating.



Last time I wrote about how the first-person shooter genre succeeds in putting the player within the subjective perceptual realm of the in-game character. MGS2 is primarily in third-person, however it offers the option of assuming a subjective first-person mode for investigating environments, and shooting from a vantage point behind the character’s gun.

What struck me instantly was the distinction between these two modes. The third-person view distances the player from the character, while the first-person view provides a very subjective look into the character’s experience providing extra ambient effects such as wind, breath and heart-beat noises. Several segments of the game offer the use of an in-game directional microphone that is used in the first-person mode. When using the directional microphone, the player can only hear what the microphone is pointing at, and if the player isn’t careful, they can miss out on important plot points if they do not point the microphone at specific events.

The third-person mode is seen from a fixed or preset camera position. This is unlike many Nintendo brand games that I’m used to (with the free-roving retro-posited, or player- controlled camera). An example of my preference can be seen here in Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess. This game uses a system in which the camera is easily situated behind the character, at the player’s control. The game also has an optional first-person mode for environmental investigation and arrow-shooting. Since the camera is usually situated behind the character Link, the player shares directional continuity with the character. In the same sense as the first-person shooter, the player becomes more immersed in the character’s physical functions.
MGS2 offers no control over camera angles. The camera has fixed positions and movements that are only affected by character movement. Because of this, the player never becomes immersed in the character, instead assuming the position of an omniscient puppet-master. In Zelda, control directions are always relative to the camera position, so you press up to move Link up, and press down to move Link down. In MGS2, you have no control over the camera but the control directions always stay the same, so you may have to press up on the control stick if you want to move Snake or Raiden down. I immediately saw this as negative, however I did not understand the complete implications of this control scheme until I beat the game. I would argue that the control scheme in MGS2 is a means of meta-fiction which meshes well with many of its narrative elements.



While MGS2 is by no means the first video game meta-fiction (most games address the player when teaching game rules and control functions), it effectively utilizes the video game control functions as a means of further expressing certain plot themes. From this point on I will be spoiling crucial plot surprises from the game.

Metal Gear Solid 2 develops a theme in which the main character Raiden must face questions surrounding the basic truths of his existence (offering a parallel between “real world” military training and “VR” training). Throughout the course of the game, Raiden learns that the woman he loves is a spy gathering information on him, that his commanding officer (whom he corresponded with only over transceiver) was only an AI digital representation, and that his entire life was manipulated by an international organization in an attempt in forming him into a perfect soldier. Raiden’s body is also filled with nano-machines that come to betray his sensory perception. In short, Raiden’s entire life has always been under the control of forces outside of his own. It is my belief that the game’s control scheme purposefully distances the player from the in-game character as a means of indicating the player as a controller of Raiden’s life-actions. Several sequences in the game help to back up this theory. For example, Raiden’s commanding officer Colonel Campbell radio’s Raiden shouting "Raiden, turn the game console off rightnow! ... Don't worry, it's a game! It's a game just like usual. You'll ruinyour eyes playing so close to the TV." This reference to the construct of the game suggests the canon’s willingness to include the player as a recognized controller of the in-game character’s events.



So while I found the game’s controls disruptive, I think more immersive controls would have minimized the distance between the player and the character, thus eliminating this meta-fictitious element of the game’s narrative.

"Subjectivity of the First-Person Shooter" By Adam Slight

Lately I have rekindled my passion for N64’s Goldeneye 007, and since the semester is finally winding down I’m able to find more time to play, both the single player missions as well as some riveting multiplayer matches with James Leclaire. I haven’t appreciated Goldeneye 007 this much since 1997 when the game was released (that was more than 10 years ago!). I recall the attention surrounding the game and its close imitation of the 1995 film Goldeneye. I even re-viewed the film recently and notice precise similarities between spatial layouts of sets/levels, replicated gadgets, and close character details (I recall noticing the Alec Trevelyan character in the game wearing a gold ring on his “finger”).

Playing the game this morning (the facility level) I began to apply to Goldeneye 007 some ideas that I have previously explored. As you may or may not know, I have an escalating interest in the application of cinema (and in extension, video games) to various conceptions of “real life experience” a la Andre Bazin’s “Myth of Total Cinema”. In short, I’m close to comfortable stating that I don’t think Total Cinema (cinema as an attempt at an all-encompassing recreation of reality) is a myth at all. Without getting too divergent on this topic, I’d like to skip ahead a little.

The first person shooter genre is in my eyes a very important step on the path to Total Cinema. As the name implies, in the FPS the player is the “first person” to experience what the in-game character experiences. Alternatively, second-person implies a player address, like in text- based adventures (“You find yourself at a fork in the road. Do you turn right, or left?”), while the third-person perspective suggests the player as an omniscient controller of a visibly “other” character.

First-Person

Second-Person

Third-Person

Implicitly, the first-person perspective places the player within the in-game character. As I mentioned in my colloquium presentation on video-game sound experimentation, the first-person shooter allows the player a subjective experience parallel to the in-game character. If one wishes, they may refer to Bordwell and Thompson’s "Film Art" and their discussion on Perceptual and Mental Subjectivity in traditional cinema. Perceptual subjectivity is simple; the film gives “access to what characters see and hear”. A good example of this is the Point of View shot – the shot that first-person shooter permanently assumes. While in cinema, mental subjectivity is the use of stylistic devices to provide insight to what characters think, FPS’ often simply provide perceptual subjectivity to allow players to assume their own desired mental state. Obviously this is not always the case. In Goldeneye 007 for example, coloured bars appear at the sides of the screen upon character injury (a possible visual cue for “panic”). Similarly, N64’s Perfect Dark applies a trippy, blurred slo-mo effect when Joanna Dark gets punched or sedated.

In my colloquium presentation, I focused mostly on sonic subjectivity in the FPS. Using Call of Duty 3, I indicated to several examples where in-game sound is presented to the player using surround sound technology, subjective to the character's own experience. Environmental and diegetic sounds are heard in subjectivity to the direction that the character is facing, in effect to the acoustics and conditions of the setting. The best example I can present is the “ringing ears” effect, when all sounds are deafened by a constant ringing when a grenade explodes near the character.

While I may seem enthusiastic about the FPS’ subjectivity, there are some problems that I considered while playing Goldeneye 007 this morning. There are many limitations that have yet to be overcome by the FPS’ genre. Most of these limitations are based on player perspective. While it is interesting to consider the physical relationship that the player has with the character (the player physically exerts energy and muscle to push controller buttons in order to “physically” move the in-game character through virtual space) this process is still very crude. Here is a list of limitations that I immediately notice:

- The in-game character lacks peripheral vision. This may extend to the wide-screen cinema which arguably imitates a person’s field of vision. I noticed this as I was swiftly moving around a corner in The Facility, and was unable to quickly check a blind-spot for enemies (much like checking a blind-spot while driving)

- A player’s eyes are indefinitely disconnected from the character’s. Instead of forcing a relationship between gamers’ eyes and character eyes, the game creates a contract between gamer and game which encourages the gamer to assume and inspect the character’s presented field of vision. This problem introduces many other problems such as the quality of the gamers’ eyes, the difference between player depth of field and character’s depth of field etc.

- While recent developments in dual-analogue controls have rendered the character’s legs independent of the character’s waist (players can now move in one direction but pivot/point in a separate direction), independence of the character’s neck has yet to be brought into mainstream consideration. The character’s eyes are inherently connected to the direction that he/she is pointing their weapon. I have seen variations of temporary solutions to this, most of which assume a temporary third-person perspective. This unfortunately removes a level of subjectivity from the mix. I have also seen flight simulators which detach the eyes from the weapon, allowing the player to look from side-to-side within the cockpit.


While normally a first-person shooter, Quantum of Solace also uses a third-person cover system in order to detach the character's eyes from his gun

If anyone can think of other problems with the first-person perspective, or examples that overcome some of these problems, please let me know.

Wall-E: Semiotics and Junk...

While I’ve grown up with Pixar since Toy Story hit theaters, it wasn’t until The Incredibles that I began to discover the rich detail, preparation and thought that differentiates Pixar animated films with other subordinate computer animated productions. It was this affection for Pixar that prompted me to see Wall-E as soon as I could when it was released this summer, despite the fact that I had to go see it alone on a Friday night while my little sister was on a date elsewhere in the theater. After seeing it, a repeat viewing was in order.

Since, I have been attempting to organize precisely what it was that I wanted to say about the film. The ideas were present since my first screening, however I could not find the words to articulate them. It wasn’t until I revisited semiotic theory for the purposes of several assignments in an experimental film class that I’m taking did I figure out what it was I wanted to say. Wall-E is gushing with semiotic theory.

For some time in the past I worried, as our world has become more and more dependent on text due to digital technology. Films are stored on DVD or Blu-Ray and can only be seen on its respective player while Books are only readable with knowledge of language. The reason this worries me is due to an irrational expectation of apocalypse. A sentimentality towards culture leads me to fear that it will become inaccessible.

Wall-E uses the events of an apocalypse to explore semiotics precisely in this way. Since Wall-E is an ignorant a post-apocalyptic product, he is able to live in our world out of human context. Wall-E’s obsession with the tape of Hey Dolly! and the inclusion of an Ipod in his pile of trinkets draws attention to the relationship with medium that our culture has. Wall-E separates the signs of our world from their referents—which is a root of the comedy in the film. Wall-E’s ignorance of what a bra is makes the audience laugh. He puts a bra on his eyes! Wall-E!. The film deconstructs the signs of our world to their units of figurative secondary articulation (smallest possible units of no inherent meaning) and re-constructs them differently. For example, a garbage lid becomes a hat for Wall-E.

This process also attempts to make a statement about universality. Despite Wall-E’s ability to view our symbols without referent, some things such as love seem to be iconic or universal. Wall-E is able to recognize through imitation that his feelings for Eve coincide with the feelings felt by the characters in the tape of Hey Dolly! through the act of holding hands.

Stripped of the signs that the audience are accustomed to, the humans in Wall-E add another dimension of de-contextualization. The most striking instance of this is demonstrated by the captain of The Axiom. As he learns to walk (a first for his species for several centuries), the iconic theme of 2001: A Space Odyssey is heard, mirroring the scene when apes learn to use tools. This simple association demonstrates how something that we consider trivial (walking) is monumental for humanity during this time.

I feel I have merely scratched the surface of Wall-E’s semiotic content. I may feel compelled to explore this topic more when the film reaches DVD and I watch it over and over and over.

Barbara Gamble's "Natural Affinities"

For the past year and a half I've had the privilege to work with Ottawa painter Barbara Gamble for her upcoming gallery exhibition Natural Affinities opening October 10th at the Canadian Museum of Nature. The exhibition runs until January 4th and is located on the third floor of the musuem.

Gamble's exhibition concerns itself with the vulnerable botanical species in the surrounding Ottawa area. Her methods include a layering of oil paints with wax on various canvass, metal and wood surfaces. The exhibit also includes a collection of books by 19th Century pioneer Catherine Parr Traill containing a variety of pressed plants.

My contribution to the show is a 40 second video piece focusing on a rare species of orchid found in the Ottawa area. I accompanied Gamble and several biologists to a top secret preservation site and gathered footage of the orchid. The idea of the video is to provide a visual record of the habitat of the orchid and to offer an otherwise unseen angle of the tiny flower.

I encourage anyone who wants to see some amazing paintings (and possibly my video) to check out the Canadian Museum of Nature when they have a chance.

Here is the museum's page on the exhibit: http://nature.ca/exhibits/exs/gamble/index_e.cfm

"The Dark Knight Rebuttal" by Ryan Bradley

Summer 2005. I walk out of a Batman Begins and want to slap Adam Slight in the face. How dare he make fun of the world’s greatest detective and my beloved Batman? Batman Begins reinvented a series that Joel Schumacher ran into the ground. For that alone Christopher Nolan should be applauded not to mention the fact he delivered perhaps the best superhero movie ever.

Summer 2008. I do in fact see the err of my ways and now accept some of the criticisms laid out by Adam. Batman Begins suffered from poor dialogued and some very dry scenes. The movie was not the perfect film that I once thought it to be. Nonetheless, it was still a decent comic book movie and has earned a deserved place in the superhero world along side the greats; Sin City, Spiderman 2, Batman Returns and Iron Man.

Despite my new found skepticism in this re-amped Batman franchise, I still looked forward to this The Dark Knight. Massive viral campaigning and what seemed like hundreds of trailers showing the same scenes in different orders were constantly thrown in my face. It looked amazing and it appeared that Heathy Boi (R.I.P!11!) was going to steal the show. When I saw the movie I was somehow surprised and even offended once again by Adam's review. Here we go again. Its him vs. the rest of the world – the nerds, the common movie goers and the newly found Ledger fans. Is he right? Was this movie garbage? Should people read his review and take the ravings of a madman as fact? Or Is The Dark Knight one of the greatest movies of the year? Does Heath Ledger deliver an Oscar rumored performance? Should you go out and add to the $158.4 million that this movie swept in over the past weekend?

The first attack by Mr. Slight is aimed at the soundtrack and quite frankly he mostly nails this one. The music is perhaps my greatest criticism of the movie as there are only two songs used. The movie is constantly intense and the viewer is always on edge of their seat especially in the second half of the film. Track 2 :“This Part Is Very Exciting” unnecessarily adds to the already nerve racking intensity of the film to a point where it becomes annoying. You feel like you cannot enjoy the movie at many points because that grinding song is continually playing. Track 1: “This Part Is Very Sad” is meant to be a relief from the only other song in the movie. If anything this song may be the reason that we will not see a Brokeback Mountain 2 because a certain star could not take hearing it anymore. It seemed to be played on loop just at a lower level than Track 2 so whenever Batman was not in the picture this is all you hear.

Let us now turn our attention to the acting which I do have some problems with. I could not help but wish that Rachel Dawes and Harvey Dent both got blown to millions of little pieces. I think that I showed more emotion during Princess Diaries 2 after the third time watching it. This lack of emotion was only compounded further by having some of the cheesiest and driest dialogue in what was otherwise a cleverly written movie. Nevertheless, the other characters in the movie were pulled off well while Heath Ledger lead the way. Ledger delivers the Joker in a way that I would never expected. He was tortured and torturing at the same time. Intense and scary as hell. That being said, I do not think that at the end the 5 minute Oscars montage of his mediocre movies that he should be awarded as best actor. Adam is correct - he was great but not worth digging the poor guy up for. Do not forget that we saw Sarah Jessica Parker deliver an amazing performance in this summer’s Sex and The City and she is still in the land of the living.

The final issue with this film is linked to the length, although my view on it differs SLIGHTly from Adam’s. This movie was one of the darkest and most intense movies that I have ever seen in theaters. 2 hours in, I needed a break but it continued for another 30mins. I was trying to take everything in but the length hindered me from doing so. I needed a break, not because of uninspired and bland cinematography but because the movie was so good at keeping me involved in the film. The second half of the movie is in no way like a bad case of diarrhea - unless you get diarrhea whenever you are completed drawn into a movie and never want to take your eyes off the screen. The second half is aesthetically and cinematically inspired and is definitely what could make it the best movie of the year.

The themes and ironies are in evident in this movie but it is in no way as evident and annoying as the repetition of the Fear theme in Batman Begins. All superhero movies have these themes tossed in your face which is necessary to stay true to comic book criteria. Justice and forbidden love are mixed in with the moral ambiguity in manner than it is not repetitive, not easily noticed and not annoying (Unless of course you are the Pirates of the Caribbean 3: At World’s End lover Adam Slight).
This movie was excellently executed. Great story, a much better script than Batman Begins, interesting set and costume design, amazing characters and some decent acting – all combine to create a dark and intense movie experience that I have never felt at the movies before. This being said there are some flaws with this film and perhaps it was not exactly the masterpiece that most claim it to be. It was still a great movie and in a year that has not been the best for stellar films The Dark Knight is among the top. It is highly unlikely that you will want your evening back but see it for yourself. Don’t accept this to be a masterpiece until you have thought about it. Ignore the blogs, critics and any chump that tries to tell you that you are an idiot for hating or loving a movie.

"The Dark Knight Review" or "The Friday Night I'll Never Get Back" by Adam Slight

As many have known in the past, when Batman Begins came out I was one of the few people in the world who didn’t like it. For the longest time I fought an exhaustive crusade defending my tastes and position from Batman zealots and radicals. After the dust had settled the trailer for The Dark Knight hit the screens. The funny thing about trailers is that they are designed to make movies very appealing. I thought, “This is nice, The Dark Knight looks a lot better than Batman Begins”. With that thought in mind I decided to revisit Batman Begins with an open mind after all these years in hopes that I could find it in myself to enjoy the movie. Upon reviewing Batman Begins I was able to set aside my previous hatred and enjoy the film as a flawed, but above-average superhero film. I’d put Batman Begins, Spiderman 1&2 and X-2 on the top of the superhero movie food-chain.

So with this new open-mindedness towards the Batman reboot franchise I was growing quite excited for The Dark Knight. The film was treated to astronomical reviews and Heath Ledger’s performance has been heavily decorated for the past few months. I had been assured that this was the movie to see. Last Friday evening I saw The Dark Knight and to put it frankly I wish I could have my Friday evening back.

While I’m normally not a fan of reviews or writing reviews, I feel it is important for me to state why I disliked The Dark Knight so much, as I am up against a world of crazies. I am often accused of having a bias against The Dark Knight, or even a closed mind. If The Dark Knight was really such a masterpiece I think it would be very difficult for me to sustain a closed mind, especially considering the positive expectations I’ve had since the beginning. I tried to like this movie, and trying wasn’t enough.

So here is my review:

The Dark Knight essentially has two songs in the soundtrack: “This Part Is Very Sad” and “This Part is Very Exciting”. The film uses these two songs to instill emotions into the audience, emotions that the film otherwise doesn’t have. A moving soundtrack is a cheap trick that films with no emotional dynamics use to manipulate the audience’s heart-strings. In the case of The Dark Knight, music was used to compensate for the stale, emotionless dialogue being uttered by a predominantly stiff actors. I’m not just saying this. Watch Batman Begins, or re-watch The Dark Knight and actually look for this stuff. Its like being at a funeral for three hours.

One thing I’ll credit the movie for is the set and character design. Aesthetically everything -looked- cool: The Joker’s make-up, Batman’s costume, the towering skyline of Gotham. Unfortunately this rich set-design was wasted with extremely uninspired and bland cinematography. I can honestly say that I can’t remember half of what happened in that movie because so much happened in the same places, and the monotonous dialogue and cinematography gave me nothing memorable to distinguish scenes from each other. Remember, this is the movie whose first hour includes an almost completely unnecessary legal tirade involving a global chase for some accountant guy that really amounts to nothing. After an hour of legal banter in offices I felt like I could pass the bar exam. This hour of office chatter represents a fraction of the copious amounts of filler hot-air packed into this movie. And why do they have this filler in there, when the last hour of the movie is like a bad case of diarrhea: Its all over the place, and it just won’t stop. Ultimately the length of this movie made me feel like it was a long day at work and I just wanted it out of there.

I think the reason why a lot of people didn’t really get bothered by this was Heath Ledger. I’m not going to bash him too much. He was definitely an enjoyable entity in the movie however I’d only say his acting was above average. The thing is, when one or two critics start a chain reaction before long everyone is walking into the movie expecting to see the best performance of the decade. How bad does it look professionally when a critic decides to give a negative review when 90% of the industry is drinking Ledger’s clown piss from a golden chalice? With those kinds of expectations, the late Mr. Ledger has most of the audience eating out of his cold dead hands. He could go up on screen and fart the entire movie and people would love it. I thought he was great, but I don’t think it’s worth digging up his grave to stick an Oscar into his coffin.

Now for the biggest crime of them all: These Batman films simply love to latch onto certain themes and ironies and beat them to a living pulp. Like Batman Begins: OK! We know the theme of this movie is fear! Stop driving it into my skull. The Dark Knight was so obvious about the fact that yes, this movie is about moral ambiguity. We get it thank you. Additionally, The Dark Knight loves to play up the irony card. OMG – the villains are torturing their victims the way they were tortured! How clever! Oh look, its happening again and again and again…this is so dramatic! Repetition is a device this movie thrives on. Is this really the deep writing that critics are all crapping their pants over?

In the end the dramatic scenes were bland and emotionless and far too plentiful and the fighting scenes gave me seizures. This ocean of mediocrity dwarfs the few moments that I thought were actually cool, beautiful and intelligent. Its hard to see past all the clown make-up, but there you’ll see the cold and calculated gears of a movie designed for the sole purpose of tricking the audience into thinking the movie is a masterpiece.

Why do I think this and 99% of the world thinks the opposite? This is a battle I need to fight one inch at a time. If you haven't watched it yet, or plan on watching it again...please try to remember this review!