Do I think that Michael Bay is an auteur? Yes. Does listing him as such make him a good director? Hell-freaking-no, as I’m sure you were aware, yourself. :P
Savvy
But should his filmography be on this site?
ANOTHER thread on Michael Bay … ?
>>If an Auteur can be defined as a filmmaker whose movies are characterized by a filmmaker’s creative influence, then surely Michael Bay can be classified with such a label.<<
Yes, he has a definite signature so he’s an auteur. So is Ed Wood.
damn i love this thread
Hold on, don’t insult Ed Wood by comparing him to Bay. That’s not fair.
ZPB summed it up well. I do think Bay’s filmography should be on the site, only because every filmography should be on the site.
Ed wood was meant to be cheesy and campy, at least thats what I am under the impression of. Michael Bay doesnt know that his films are cheesy and makes up for the lack of a story by blowing the crap out of everything,I think he insults his audience but also I think his audience is 12 year old boys. I dont think hes an auteur, hes a wanna be auteur. I but I think that all types of films should be on here including his. just because I am not a fan doesnt mean that there arent people here on this site who respect him. But in no case is bay a auteur ub my opinion
bay is a robot..same thing over and over…
Those who knew Ed Wood claim he had no clue his films were Cheesy and campy, so I guess he’s on a par with Bay.
That said, I’d rather rewatch almost any of Wood’s films (though not PRETTY MODELS IN A ROW) than anything of Bay’s.
>>But in no case is bay a auteur ub my opinion<<
He’s got an identifiable visual signature, hasn’t he? (Or is he easily mistaken for Zach Snyder? or Roland Emmerich?) That’s one of the signs of an auteur. Auteurism is no indicator of quality.
“his films were Cheesy and campy, so I guess he’s on a par with Bay.”
i didn’t know Bay was cheesy and campy…so it seems Fulci and Franco who are campy as well are on par to Bay’s “talent”…i see…well-maintained argument Harry, bravo….
csi miami ‘s style of cinematography and car chases and an army of digital composers…that’s bay, emerich, snyder, all hollywood startlets…
Here we go again…
Alex can correct me if I’ve misread, but the subject of the post is not how much Michael Bay sucks (we all agree he sucks), but can a filmmaker who sucks also be an auteur. I say yes. The term “auteur” is a description, not a statement of quality.
Brad’s got it
Yes, blah blah blah. We’ve been over this a thousand times on this forum – let alone elsewhere in the world.
hes no worse than QT
>>so it seems Fulci and Franco who are campy as well<<
Franco is campy? I just thought he was … well, let’s just say I’ve obviously been missing something …
I can buy that possibly Fulci is campy. My favorite things by him are his sex comedies such as THE EROTICIST (which is what it’s DVD title is over here … doubt it’s the same in Italy).
>> Brad’s got it<<
Hey, that’s just what I said!
And yeah … here we go again.
if Franco and Fulci aren’t campy, then all those Stuart Gordons and Ruggero Deodatos are trash indeed, so let’s be serious around here!
Fulci is definitely campy. There is no possibility, it’s just simple fact. The Beyond, Zombi 2, City of the Living Dead, A Cat in the Brain – yeah, right there.
Yes, Michael Bay is an auteur. No, it is not an indicator of quality.
Alex Towers
If an Auteur can be defined as a filmmaker whose movies are characterized by a filmmaker’s creative influence, then surely Michael Bay can be classified with such a label.
His military fetishism, preference for woeful acting, fiery theatrics and ADHD cinematography are all characteristics that populate his entire cinematic output. The Criterion Collection have even recognized this with the inclusion of not one, but two of his films. Is Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen an example of (an admittedly crass) auteurism in the same way The Royal Tenenbaums is?
So though moronic (and sometimes racist) should we begrudgingly include him in a list of modern Auteurs?