A film which is technically “difficult” or “hard” to make is not necessarily good Cinema. I don’t see what easy or difficult has to do with quality in a film. Like Godard said, all you need is a gun and a girl. If the filmmaker’s talented, he doesn’t need CGI or multi-million dollar budgets. The proof of this is “Breathless” or “Reservoir Dogs” are great films and “Armaggedon” and “Transformers” are pop-corn rubbish. I don’t get why Criterion picked up this man’s “films”.
I’m sure there’s some semblance of a point here and a worthy discussion to be had. But it will not be had unfortunately.
But it will not be had unfortunately.
You can’t defend Malcolm X on a white supremacist site.
Art films are formulaic, as Godard said.
I would update what he said by adding water, people smoking, and gratuitous/explicit sex to the gun/ girl.
Voilà ! an art film is born….
Well, blockbusters and pop-corn movies are certainly more formulaic than art-films. Then again, the case could be made to argue that all art is formulaic. Hell, life itself is generally formulaic… But is that a bad thing?
Not at all, if you know the formula for survival:
Stay at the center of the herd where it is safe.
Listen closely for the God-like relater,
he will tell you what to think.
lol fair enough
Dequinix, fair enough. I do think there is an interesting conversation to be had on the “difficulty” (for a lack of a better word) between something big budget and something that is an “art” movie. Too many people here are content with stroking one other about how terrible Michael Bay is. It’s self-evident and an easy to say, so why go on and on about for 4 pages?
Whatever. Obviously it is not easy to make artistic films. To be fair I doubt making a film like “Transformers” is a simple task, I just think the final product was a waste of peoples time. Bay has a point. A number of artistic filmmakers make total crap that is then seen as solid merely because of their reputation and / or how much the film diverts itself from anything that could be considered mainstream. Some people think this translates into instant brilliance. We’re not immune to deception either, I would imagine a lot less thought actually went into some of the world’s “purist cinema” than we’d like to think. Directors like Guy Maddin and Peter Greenaway put together extravagant sessions of intellectual masturbation (that doesn’t mean the films aren’t necessarily good, I often like both of them), and should a young filmmaker come out and make something semi-similar, there is fair chance it will be labeled as non-sense. As fans of “art-house” movies, I think it’s necessary for everyone to sometimes look at what they enjoy and realize why someone else may find it a little ridiculous, much like we find things ridiculous about big-budget franchise movies.
Regardless, whether you spend endless nights trying to put together the perfect film, or just kind of film something on a whim and see what the result is, I feel it’s value is measured not only by what a film directly says but what it could say to depending on the viewer. In the long run, I don’t think it’s up for debate that Bay and his movies are generally inarticulate.
“As fans of “art-house” movies, I think it’s necessary for everyone to sometimes look at what they enjoy and realize why someone else may find it a little ridiculous, much like we find things ridiculous about big-budget franchise movies.”
Really? If I suddenly realize that Guy Maddin and Peter Greenaway are a little ridiculous that has nothing to do with Kiarostami. Only in The Vampire Bay’s warped Hollywood value system is “arthouse” some formulaic genre you can plug arty love scenes into the way he plugs explosions into his crap. A girl, a gun, a cigarette, etc. have no meaning for anyone who truly loves and understands independent or art cinema without these essential ingredients from the artist: soul, spirit and the senses. The Vampire Bay and his soulless cohorts see art cinema the way Neo sees the matrix, except with dollar signs instead of numbers. Luckily, that’s all I see when I see a clip from TranformerIronmanAvatarshite.
Oh, Kiarostami isn’t formulaic?
Move him to France and you would see lots more water and gratuitous/explicit sex. The only reason he doesn’t use that is Iran doesn’t have either.
Honestly, culture is funny – what other species has to constantly have their identity reinforced? We are of the higher order, so that is what we need?
Sometimes I listen to Glen Gould’s plickity-plankity
Bach and I laugh. I’m listening to some plickity-plankity Satie right now.
Humans are funny – Culture is funny – enjoy the show !
Well, you are definitely funny, Robert:)
1. sure it’s easy to make an art movie i guess, but to make an art movie that connects with people on a subconscious level, like poetry? not exactly easy.
2. but i’m sure he does work his ass off. his movies have far more money riding on them, and he has a WAY bigger crew to direct. if he spent 200 million on a movie and it flopped, he would probably have a hard time finding work again.
but in the end, his movies are just pop entertainment that won’t make an impression of people’s lives.
and i don’t get what he’s saying about the wine cellar whatever shit
“adding water, people smoking, and gratuitous/explicit sex to the gun/ girl.
Voilà ! an art film is born….”
You have just described about half the porn made in 70s and 80s.
I’ll give credit where credit is due. It is really hard to do what Michael Bay does. He’s very talented at his craft.
The thing is, his movies suck. And artistic films that are far easier to make are more interesting, meaningful, and engaging.
Big budget films are harder to make than art films, but they’re way easier to get people to watch. You get the first $100 million just for finishing the film and advertising it during the Super Bowl.
On the production end, the only person that can currently match Bay may be Spielberg. Some may throw Emmerich into the mix, but Emmerich makes Bay look like the next coming of Kurosawa.
fuck michael bay. the transformer movies are some of the most predictable and worst I’ve seen.
I don’t think he’s especially talented.
He’s consistently made THE WORST action movies I’ve ever seen.
When Jan de Bont directs a better action flick than you, you suck.
Bay doesn’t know shit about real art house cinema. He is not a cinephile. He knows NOTHING.
As for my next point, i’ve heard this argument bandied around by would-be egalitarian/anti-elitist type, and it’s true to some degree, but not from an artistic standpoint. The difficulty arises in ensuring that the film casts as wide a net as possible, doesn’t offend anyone, and appeal to as many different groups/subcultures etc. So yeah, that IS difficult, but that is pandering and has nothing to do with art.
so yeah, fuck Michael Bay, and fuck these wannabe egalitarian/democratic types too.
pandering and has nothing to do with art
Gotta agree, but many art-house films do pander to the art-house crowd.
They pander to those seeking the new, the different, the true.
Something wrong with that?
Peabody, is that a rhetorical question? ;-)
I agree that some art directors pander to that crowd, but to me the pandering stuff appeals to the coffee/diner party set, and that is probably the new film makers. In other words, i’m not even sure if real arthouse cinema exists anymore, but let me put it this way, even if a guy like M.Haneke is ‘pandering’, for example, he is still a lot more worth than fucking Bay. If both intentions are far from ‘noble’, then all that truly matters is results. And White Ribbon, despite being Haneke’s best, is a shitload better than any of Bay’s films ;-)
^^despite NOT being Haneke’s best, and of course i’m speaking hypothetically. I have no idea what is going on inside of Bay or Haneke’s mind, and i’m glad for it ;-)
When you talk about the logistics of making a crap blockbuster explostion/green screen flick vs a small performance/cinematography based art house film, yes Bay is right, then if they throw in 3D, then the logistics are even more demanding. Plus producers are even more prying on the script process and in the production because so much money is involved. But for the most part the blockbusters have little to any artisic value (especially Bay’s works), because they have been dehumanized by the process of getting the film made.
The critic’s shit on Bay’s work because it’s fluff and has no redeeming value, it’s 2:15 out of your life and $15 out of your pocket (sans going to the concession counter). So, basically, in his jealously, Bay is saying “It is hard damn work to be this shitty.”
Making films like Bay makes is hard work like deforestation is hard work.
Bay is like the least interesting side of Steven Spielberg. While Spielberg always made blockbusters that do have artistic value and interesting points and insights (at least some do), Bay’s movies are completely hollow. They’re a product, basically, and while that’s completely valid, it’s not Cinema as I understand it. I don’t mind a film that is made to make money, but please make it in such a way I don’t fell hollow and dumb when watching it. Hell, I love Hawks’ Scarface and it was pretty much a blockbuster back in the 1930’s. But it respects its audience.
^^agree Lopezz. The blockbuster is not inherently bad. History has proven that you can make one with a decent/original script, smart/interesting characters and engaging plot development. e.g Back To The Future etc. It just rarely happens. I’ll for the idea of them, but they aren’t made well anymore, or at least rarely anyway. For every Hellboy 2 or Dark Knight, there are at least 100 shit ones.
I agree Del Toro’s and C. Nolan’s films are very good examples of how a “commercial” movie can be both artistic, well made and even refreshing, as well as entertaining. The Hellboy franchise and The Prestige or The Dark Knight are very good examples. When I mentioned Spielberg, I was thinking mainly about his WWII films – Schindler’s List and Private Ryan. I think they’re great films. And I’m a guy whose favorite directors are Bergman, Fellini and Lynch. The funny thing for me is, I find a lot more interesting, well made and entertaining a Fernando Di Leo crime film made with a few dollars in 3 or 4 weeks and mostly amateur actors , than any multi-million Michael Bay blockbusters. Which leads me back to my initial point – what matters most is the filmmaker’s talent, not the money and staff he uses to make it.
deforestation is to toilet paper what Bay is to…. I can’t go there, never seen one of his films, but hey, you gotta wipe your ass with something!
But it seems that you all are ignoring what goes into the filmmaking process and just killing the messenger.
Bay is less a director than a cat herder and that shows in his work. The logistics of the visual effects distracts Bay from getting the performances he needs from his actors and it’s just one of the many issues that Bay has.
Nolan has done the small films and the larger ones, just as Scott, and being able to fall back on the lessons learned on smaller films have allowed them to better manage the larger films; Bay has only done big films and lacks the knowledge on how to better work with actors and crew (which is infinately larger than the crew of a small film.
Bay is not wrong in his declaration, he’s just not qualified to make it.