What winery movie is he talking about?
ok, i’d like to see him show how easy it is to shoot an art movie in a winery in the South of France
What a self-aggrandizing douchebag Bay is.
He’s got a point, if he’s referring specifically to “shooting” the film. Writing and producing an art film, on the other hand, . . .
Ignorance must be bliss for the man who sits on his ivory throne (literally I assume), and talks about how difficult it is to have dollar thrown at you left and right (again, literally I assume) to make another huge blockbuster film the world really didn’t need.
He’s a big douche but he has a bit of a point…I was laughing my ass off when I saw the trailer for that Lemon Tree movie on this site. Really? People want to see a movie about someone loving a lemon tree? Sometimes I wonder what sucked out all of the excitement and edginess out of indie films.
For some to be a cinematographer doesn’t mean the D.P., but suggests the totality of a creator. In this sense, one would never think to separate writing from shooting. Think of it as gestalt. Bay is a ass, oozing the brown stain of hubris.
His quote is so general that it’s obsolete. What exactly is he referring to? I don’t know too many art house movies that are shot at a winery in France.
But anyway, that’s sort of beside the point.
I doesn’t matter how hard someone worked on something, if the movie itself is crap. You can work yourself to the bone in the service of a junk movie. Do we really think that the shooting of “Waterworld” was all fun-in-the-sun? No. But the difficulty involved in shooting a film has almost nothing to do with the final product if the ideas are inane, the acting is wooden, and it’s nothing more than a rehash of the last movie that he made. The same thing stands for art movies. Just because something was easy and fun to shoot doesn’t mean that the movie will be bad.
Kudos to Bay for working his butt off. I’m not doubting his work ethic here, but if he thinks his movies ought to get a free pass from critics just because they can be difficult to pull off, well, maybe he should go make his art movie in the south of France and see how the critics react to it.
What’s this about the Lemon tree? Has he been knocking the film about the Palestinian woman whose lemon grove was cut down to ensure better security for the Israeli minister who moved in the neighborhood? well it was a bit comfortable for my taste given the scale of the animosity and bloodshed but it’s at least intended to make the world a better place and treats a Palestinian with dignity, rather than glamourising violence and reinforcing the status quo and stereotyping assumptions..
To be fair, it isn’t 100% a piece of cake to do a huge scale production, but Bay definitely underestimates how difficult putting time, thought, and genuine effort into a film can be. To quote Roger Ebert, “You can make explosions all day and not give it a moment’s thought.”
I think he’s talking about Ridley Scott’s film “A Good Year.” hahahahaha
I understand what he’s saying when he says it hard to create the types of films that he creates. But I don’t think he’s in any position to criticize art house films since he’s never made a smaller, art house film. What is required of Bay on his films is not so much a director but a general who must lead a massive army. I can’t even imagine leading the hundreds (if not thousands) of people that he leads in creating his films. And the weird thing is, his films have his own unique stamp on them. Like them or hate them, a Michael Bay film is not a generic action film that looks like everything else. That is impressive to me when you’re dealing with something on that type of scale. And the amount of physical energy must be staggering for him. It’s really too bad that his films are ultimately throwaways.
I think one person who can actually defend Bay’s point is Ridley Scott since he’s made huge films and smaller films. On the DVD for Matchstick Men, he talks about how this film was like a vacation for him and so easy to shoot compared to a lot of the films he’s done. And the funny thing is, I actually really like Matchstick Men. Go figure.
What makes a movie an art movie?
Apparently, France + Winery = Art Movie
Falling Leaves by Iosseliani, set in a Georgian (country that is) winery is classy, and he moved to France. Perhaps Depardieu should have made great films in his vineyards
LOL Fredo!
He’s a hack.
Im with Fredo on this one. Hes somewhat of a prick for stating such but hes not completely wrong. There is nothing easy about making a huge Hollywood blockbuster and as far as they go, Bay isn’t all that bad. With that said though, hes really not in any position to criticize since hes never made these so called art films himself.
I personally think it’s a lot easier to go shoot an art movie in a winery in the “NORTH” of France.
Michael Bay is an auteur, a genius. No other filmmaker has been able to so artistically and excitingly destroy and blow up things since Louis Lumière’s Démolition d’un mur (Demolition of a Wall, 1896). The last time some arty farty director tried to blow things up we got Michelangelo Antonioni’s Blowup (1966) that cuts too slowly, had no love subplot, no real ending and even had a few shots of pure black and white!
Michael Bay is a visionary and revolutionary, he claims that art films are easy to make while Transformers is difficult to make when in fact, Transformers is an art film. He would have called the film Blowup if not for hack director Michelangelo Antonioni’s sleazy exploitation of the name about 40 years ago. Michael Bay invented a genre, a really arty genre called “blow shit up”. You see, it is like the British New Wave after the war. It is symbolic. Rebellion. Fight the power. Genius. Fucking genius.
Making a Hollywood blockbuster is surely made easier by not having to worry about the script, characters, performances, and anything resembling a decent story.
I was never a fan of his work (outside of my professed love for special effects), but until I heard that quote I just dismissed him. Now I’m kinda not liking him.
Even if you thought that kind of thing, the ego it takes to say it to the press is, well, disappointing.
Law, you have no idea what you are talking about, go back to playing with your toys you stupid juvenile! I would like to blow you up.
Bay is always making Art Films. When’s he gonna make something brainless and fun.
Law, please tell them you’re joking.
I took Law’s post as a joke.
Are there rules that arrogance and pretentiousness and judging films you haven’t seen, are all ok when discussing Bay? I feel like those should be rules.
Making any movie is obviously difficult, but it sure makes it easier when zero creativity is needed. I don’t think Bay has seen too many art films.
It’s not arrogant to point out that the Cookie Monster is childish. Same thing.
I like your thinking.
However, I think its insulting to children around the world to call Michael Bay’s films childish.
Have you ever seen Yo Gabba Gabba?
I’d rather watch Micheal Bay.
http://yogabbagabba.com/
I have now.
Its a close one, but at least Yo Gabba Gabba made me laugh. I feel like it could be used for torture a la One, Two, Three.
When you have children, this kind of thing sneaks its way into your subconscious. It is evil. I am fighting it.
I prefer the Tom & Jerry / Roadrunner & Coyote / Three Stooges method of child-rearing.
User de Faux-Fuyants
“It’s easy to go shoot an art movie in a winery in the South of France. But people have no idea how hard it is to create something like Transformers. They (the critics) review me before they’ve even seen the movie,” explains the filmmaker, whose salary for the first of the action franchise totaled $80 million."
How do you feel about this?