“It’s hilarious that guys like him think they are going to get all that money for feeding into the masses obsession with juvenile violence and then pick up a couple of oscars and critics awards as well.”
It’s worked well for Scorsese, and Tarantino.
Oui oui, I go blow up zee some merde in zee wineries in zee south of France wiz mon ami Michel Bay. Oui, oui, Zee Transformehrz iz zee greatest, how you say, piece de resistance. Oui, oui.
God, Michael Bay is a douchebag. His films need to be released as an Eclipse set, “Michael Bay: Films as Merde.”
‘Films as Merde’.
Not to abduct this thread (or retread former threads), but this prompts the question once again: “Why did Criterion decide to include two of his films in their collection?” Technically Bay is at least ‘somewhat arthouse’ bearing his inclusion with so many revolutionary and ‘artsy’ filmmakers …
“The plot ends up being some National Treasure/Indian Jones 4 symbol-driven quest for the truth. Dull, boring and stupid. There’s a lot of shouting, a lot of strident music and a lot of loud explosions- none of which, engage the brain or entertain.”
sounds like your describing about 89.9% of the Hollywood output of the past 25 years. Very good description.
Michael Bay would be someone I’d look to as an expert on art film making, that’s fer shure.
Yeah, it’s because all of his films are almost completely artificial, he just never got a chance to be the epic filmmaker he thought he was born to be… I’d have sympathy for him if I was a kind man. How can he even call himself a filmmaker when the green screen and the designers are 90% responsible for the final film? Micheal Bay makes cartoons with live actors, he’s just an amateur who somehow convinced America that his movies are watchable.
Perhaps they included his films because Bay represents somewhat of an archetype who has had, I’m grieved to admit, some impact on the way that films are made. Whatever else might be said, many of his films are successful. Please don’t treat that as a defense of his ridiculous comment. It goes back, I think, to the extremely broad topic of why people go to movies. At my place of employment, everyone comes in after a weekend wanting to discuss what they’ve seen over the break. From time to time, we suggest films to each other, and vow to watch them all the way through. Needless to say, I haven’t been all that popular, since I’ve suggested Tarkovsky’s Stalker, Paris, Texas, and 2046, to name a few.
My co-workers are simply not interested in anything even slightly cerebral. This doesn’t make them bad people, but it does go back to why they go. They are interested in visual spectacle, rollercoaster pacing, and stories which have a conclusive upbeat ending, and for the most part, do not consider that which provokes sober reflection to be “a good time.” Interestingly, I can enjoy the rollercoaster ride as much as the next fellow, if its done well. I guess I count myself lucky that I can do both, since I like films, period.
^ Same here, Armand. My second job is at a Data Center and we talk about movies all the time but whenever I mention anything remotely foreign or “artsy” (not my word, I personally think the term has no meaning, but anyway) there’s always an awkward silence usually broken by, “And Harrison Ford’s on board for Indiana Jones 5…”.
And I’m afraid you’re right. I’ve heard that explanation before about Bay and it’s the only one that makes any sense.
Socrates said “I know that I know nothing”, this is key to wisdom and intuitive understanding. Most people do not have abilty the recognise when someone is right or simply are more knowledgable on a chosen subject matter. They will never be able to develope a deeper appreciation of cinema because they’ll never be able to learn anything. This is just a sad reality but the real problem is that they are not aware of this. The problem I have though with these people is they believe in the Money=Greatness theorem and any suggestion that goes against this formula is veiwed as a personal attack.
Bay must realize that to be a good “action” director you primarily need to know how to manage a budget.
Get the product out there without going over budget.
I’m all for cutting Bay’s comment to pieces, but what’s always bothered me is when a film is called “art.” Firstly it sounds pretentious, but that’s just my personal opinion, what I think is really wrong with calling a film “art” is that decisions go into every film—Michael Bay’s included. Those decisions can be questioned by us, their merit judged, but there’s always the question in the director (or whoever’s head) of “what am I trying to show.”
So I guess you could say movies that are “art” are movies whose cinematic decisions we enjoy for one reason or another, but calling a movie “artsy” is just stupid machismo bullshit. Everyone is trying to do the same thing, and that is make a good movie (whatever that means) so when Michael Bay says the word artsy I feel like he’s completely misunderstood all of cinema. The movie about a winery in France is choosing to show the owners son as someone who’s undermining tradition by starting up a cheap wine company that doesn’t treat it’s workers well, and doesn’t care about quality, only money, while Michael Bay is choosing to show a massive robot that is compassionate, seeking to champion the values of courage and sacrifice.
So yes, in this instance, Michael Bay in my opinion was not thinking.
“How can he even call himself a filmmaker when the green screen and the designers are 90% responsible for the final film?”
Will James Cameron be judged similary when the green-screened, 3D’d Avatar is released? Just askin’.
“The problem I have though with these people is they believe in the Money=Greatness theorem and any suggestion that goes against this formula is veiwed as a personal attack.”
Good. Then let us by all means attack them harder.
Drew – “‘what am I trying to show.’”
That’s pretty much the definition of an artists job. If film isn’t art then neither is literature, painting, theatre, music, or anything else that’s been classified as such.
Yeah, they’re not art—they’re life. Maybe I’m just hung up over the implications of superficial nomenclature, but I feel like everything that’s classified as art is really just life and its decisions in another medium…and okay, that medium is called art. But I still can’t get over it.
christ, enough about Michael Bay, already! Yes, he’s a whore & a vulgarian—and unapologetic about all of that. There are whorish vulgarians in every walk of life (movies aren’t everything), even in the highest professions.
The movie industry was fostered and raised up by thieves, hucksters, vulgarians and the like. Even way back: what was Thomas Alva Edison but a cut-throat hustler who also happened to be a genius? We don’t have a history of hieratic performance arts, in the U.S. (we don’t have a Noh; we don’t have a Racine) – we have instead a lineage of cheesy pop entertainments. D.W. Griffith was for instance a vulgarian, as was of course Cecil B. DeMille. The studios have since their inception been run by vulgar hustlers, and have ever since been stocked with the same type. Michael Bay is one flagrant vulgarian out of millions in our society—but he’s at least home, is one of the crowd. If anyone has found themselves a warm, tasteful, worldly corner of this dumbass society – from which one can safely piss on Bay without being troubled by the futility or contradiction – then I want to know where that corner is…
“Yeah, they’re not art—they’re life.”
Couldn’t agree more, but we have to classify it as something. It’s human nature… find something without a name and name it.
KJ- I might say yes, I’ve always had a problem with green screens, why can’t we have more filmmakers like Herzog, get out into the jungle and really conqueror the elements necessary without plastering the easy filler to make it a complete film. If an American filmmaker set out to make Fitzcarraldo today, it would almost completely be CG, just look at what they did to The Day the Earth Stood Still!!! The 1951 film worked because it focused on the emotions of the people and the outer world beings, the poor effects made it lovable because you could see how much heart went into it. I just think if it needs a green screen to be made believable (or to make a story), I’d prefer not support a gigantic budget for half assed filmmakers (and I mean that fully, they become less and less filmmakers and more and more just crew members with louder pipes.) I know there are fans of James Cameron, but eh, I’ve never been a huge fan, I enjoyed The Abyss for the most part, but that was an accomplishment, a lot of hard work did go into that- and yeah he works hard to obtain the image he wants, but like I said, never really been a fan.
I don’t believe the “green screen” is there to make anything believable.
Good point about Fitzcarraldo, the “green screen” would have destroyed the drama.
But I wonder if today’s audience would agree.
>>I tried to make my post as blatantly sarcastic as possible.<<
Well, the needle on my sarcasometer went into the red zone …
He is talking about that Ridley Scott movie, it was NOT an art movie. Maybe any movie without explosions is an art movie to him.
“I prefer the Tom & Jerry / Roadrunner & Coyote / Three Stooges method of child-rearing.”
It is that kind of a Montessori school? Damn my parents for not enrolling me in it, then.
I was sure Bay was taking a shot at that Ridley Scott movie, but why? Is that what passes for an art film in his mind? Can he really be that ignorant? Can it be he’s never seen a Renoir or Truffaut, for fuck sake? If he had to sit through a Hou or Dumont he’d liken the experience to being waterboarded.
Doinel- I agree, simply because it can be used for various things, but I believe in most cases It’s there to create situations that would otherwise be near impossible to create, and in a sense it is trying to somehow convince us that it’s possible (I guess in some cases a green screen can create a nice affect but I prefer the sweat and blood of realism). But either or, I just hate how easy it makes filmmaking- there is just so much more joy in being able to actually get out and find a location and create the impossible with your own hands.
>get out into the jungle and really conqueror the elements necessary without plastering the easy filler to make it a complete film
You know that Alfred Hitchcock’s masterpieces are filled with process shots, right? And that artists like Albert Whitlock (google him) didn’t function as technical crutches for travel-averse or plain lazy filmmakers?
That is a good point Witkacy, but he did it with style, so that would fall under the line above “I guess in some cases a green screen can create a nice affect.” Hitchcock stands alone, we will never have another Hitchcock. And I don’t blame him for not wanting to carry all that film equipment out into locations off set. But now that we have such easily moved equipment, I still stand by getting out and really making something that captures the world. It has a more profound impact on me to know that a director put everything he/she had into completeing their film- again, Herzog is probably the finest example of a man so dedicated he is more of a documenting explorer than a filmmaker, he doesn’t make films, he makes history.
But, Joriah, you and I and all the Herzog ’heads know that the man is batshit crazy.
Michael Bay talking about art films is like dancing about architecture.
" Can it be he’s never seen a Renoir or Truffaut, for fuck sake?"
Forget about him. Worry about his disciples and wannabes.
Haha, yes, and I think to a certain extent you have to be… but for the sake of a dignified future, I wouldn’t wish his madness on anyone. But his determination is admirable, no matter how many times he smashes his head against the wall to exterminate the voices.