http://www.cocomment.com/comments/faithx5 Copyright 2007 coComment.com 2009-11-24T03:00:13.890+01:00 http://www.cocomment.com/images/logo4rss.gif http://www.cocomment.com/sidebar?object=people&context=explore&mode=detail&id=faithx5&conv=2350916&comment_id=53615823 Jandy Stone Although I liked Jim's version better overall, the commenters mentioning the human element introduced by the cuts to Batman trying to catch hold of Rachel also have a point. I think the cutaways would have increased my valuation of Nolan's original if and only if they were longer than a couple of frames. If we had enough spatial cues to figure out what (and where) the closeups were about, then I would be fine with them. As it is, it's too close, too dark, too fast, and smacks of editing for editing's sake, as discussed in the Bordwell post that Matt Zoller Seitz mentions. And I still think the non-matched cut near the end is a complete flub. @Matt, perfect example with Hemingway and King. Hemingway's sparse style is exactly what I love about him, which may in fact be the same tendency that's guiding me in this debate. Jim, in a comment response, you mention the fact that your recut could only take out the cutaways, since you could only work with existing footage. If you had all of Nolan's footage to work with, would you have included differently cut and paced cutaway closeups, or would you still have edited it with only the long shots? 2009-01-25T18:28:54.946+01:00 2009-01-25T18:28:54.946+01:00