I've read on IMDb, that Nolan likes to use "hard cuts" in his movies, and I think there are typical examples for that in The Dark Knight.
You know, when Bruce asks Alfred:
- The man in Burma... did you catch him?
- Yes.
- How?
- We burned the forest down.
And the screen cuts instantly to the picture of the lying Harvey Dent. And when Harvey screams we can see another hard cut too.
I think about this a lot, about what's the "goal" of these hard cuts could be, but I couldn't find out. Any idea? I think this is a very interesting question of film-techniques and filmmaking, maybe even story-telling. What do you think?
I think it's used for multiple purposes. I think for the most direct purpose is to compress events and do a time lapse or perhaps to show two scenes happening at the same time frame. I think other possible purpose is to create a parallel of different situations. That particular scene to me underscores the aftermath of Joker's cruel game. Both Harvey and Bruce are in tremendous pain after Rachel dies, but you can also see how different the two of them take the loss.
In technical terms, a hard cut is a change from one scene to another without the use of any transitions laid over the cut such as a fade or a dissolve.
Nolan could use hard cuts for several reasons. One, it helps to shift things from scene to scene in a very jarring way. It emphasizes the heightened peril or danger by putting the audience off balance. Like warrior said, it is also used as a transition for time.
Sometimes fades and dissolves can be a bit too noticeable if not put in precisely the right place. Stylistically, for Nolan, the hard cut works. He likes to keep the audience guessing all the time and one way of keeping them off balance is by quickly shifting from event to event.
niniendowarrior wrote:Both Harvey and Bruce are in tremendous pain after Rachel dies, but you can also see how different the two of them take the loss.
niniendowarrior wrote:Both Harvey and Bruce are in tremendous pain after Rachel dies, but you can also see how different the two of them take the loss.
I think this is the perfect answer to me
It most certainly accentuates that parallel between loss for the two characters.
filmfanatic wrote:He likes to keep the audience guessing all the time and one way of keeping them off balance is by quickly shifting from event to event.
filmfanatic wrote:In technical terms, a hard cut is a change from one scene to another without the use of any transitions laid over the cut such as a fade or a dissolve.
Nolan could use hard cuts for several reasons. One, it helps to shift things from scene to scene in a very jarring way. It emphasizes the heightened peril or danger by putting the audience off balance. Like warrior said, it also warrior said, it is also used as a transition for time.
Sometimes fades and dissolves can be a bit too noticeable if not put in precisely the right place. Stylistically, for Nolan, the hard cut works. He likes to keep the audience guessing all the time and one way of keeping them off balance is by quickly shifting from event to event.
This is a very good description. Thank you for expanding on it.
I think the best ever hard cut is in Lawerence Of Arabia, when Lawerence blows out the match and its cuts to the sun rising. Brilliant hard cut and takes full advantage of editing in a film.
