and the quote pops up in othere places
I thought we had buried this thread months ago …
it got brought back last night
It lives … again!
I have to say, like someone said earlier in this thread, he is GOOD at what he is doing: CGI flicks for the mass. But easy or not, does it determine the quality of the final product? The problem is, his movies sucks. A lot. That stupid quote made it seems that Mr. Bay thinks he is the Zen master of cinema.
Regarding his quote, what does he mean by “easy”?
He does has a point to some degree. When you are making an CGI driven film of course it is harder for everyone on set. But at the same time it is easy to make a brainless enjoyable flick for the mainstream-audience when the lack of substance, artistic value, complexity, insights is not a concern. They’re way easier to get people to watch.
But making a GOOD art/avant-garde-film that is ultimately worthwile, connects with the viewer on a subconcious level, has complexity, insights and artistic values? Now that’s not easy. That requires a lot more from the director. This is something something Mr. Bay will never understand.
Do not missunderstand me, i’m not bashing the entire commercial cinema. There are directors who shows that some films can be commercial and at the same time artistic(to a certain degree). But there aren’t many of them.
“Just because his crew spends a lot of time in the editing room does not make it art, it in fact makes it work. His movies are definitely not art or even films. They are pieces of work made for entertaining mindless people and making money. To call what Michael Bay makes films would be to like calling a dollar a work of art.”
EDIT: Whoops, nice bump. I can’t let this lovely thread die :(
This may be the best article I’ve ever read about Michael Bay. Hilarious
Okay, FUCK Michael Bay. Seriously. Transformers 2 was one of the worst movies I’ve ever seen.
Sorry for not adding anything to the conversation, I just had to say it. FUCK Michael Bay; his movies kinda suck, and he couldn’t make art if his life depended on it. His idea of art would just be a shitload of explosions (because that’s all his movies ever really are), but in black and white with indie music playing in the background.
“I’m, like, a true American.” – Michael Bay
That sums up rather nicely.
Michael Bay is very good at making very bad movies.
In fact, nobody is better than him at making worse movies.
Confusing comments from Bay. What is he saying? what is an art film? Wineries? France?
Maybe he is right, its easy to make a movie in France, at a winery. I have to agree.
However as a director, his clear insight cannot be doubted.
Firstly, the unrealistic nihilistic bombast he deploys provokes a similar response as Pasolini’s Salò. He takes simple corrupt thought and graphically demonstrates its awful conclusion. What is the consequence of blatant inanity? Perhaps it’s a world of Immediate and artificial love, violence without consequence, an unsatisfying existence filled with a populace of people with low level thought patterns and meaningless conversation. Bay’s Transformers series and much of his oeuvre reveal a horrific dystopian alternative world in which vulgar thought reigns. It’s a ghastly prospect, a revealing of what happens when the soul is corrupted. With these thoughts in mind, if the Pasolini film has been banned or controversial for its level of horror, i feel that in fairness many of Bay’s films should also be held up to the light in a similar manner, with perhaps more restriction in their ratings. How are we letting our children see this?
Second, Bay harnesses the extremely simple but also supreme power of “making something.” As a human once you make something and put in in the world, people have to respond, especially when the audience is huge. Sculptor Richard Serra understood this when he placed a sculpture called “Tilted Arc” in the federal plaza in New York. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tilted_Arc. It was a large gawky structure that people had to walk around to get to work, and it annoyed them. It was just “there” and people had to respond to it, whether they thought it was a good sculpture or not. Discussion on MUBI and everywhere about Bay is proof of this concept.
A third point, though closely related to the second, is that Bay is an uncompromising provocateur. His films are basically an insult. Hey populace, how inane are you? he taunts. Prodigiously such, respond we the populace, our dollars held high as a vote in proof. He is a pop art genius walking hand in hand with Damien Hirst http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_the_Love_of_God. (excuse another reference to sculpture) Among the thinkers of society, his career is a like a parable and a call to action, an illustration of a general societal lack of progress. Bay cries out to those who will listen, revealing to us how far we have yet to go.
Michael Bay’s prowess as a director gets talked about, in jest or not way too much.
A fourth point is, i cannot stand watching Micheal Bay Movies! I don’t like ’em!
mods please delete this comment – accidental repetition of a reply
All films are art, at least an attempt at art.
Like it was mentioned at the beginning of the thread – ‘Transformers’ is art but in a very different way. It’s not subtle, it’s not delicate – it is the ‘blow shit up’ genre.
It is not the ‘delicacy’ of the shots (for instance a poetic art film dealing with entirely different issues) but in fact in Bay’s films it is the virtual + real arrangement of the set and CGI and most importantly the motion and the movment that occurs within it – this type of a film is an action movie after all.
Bay’s films are basically a ‘beautiful’ visual pop-cultural motion for the masses IMO. Nothing wrong with that. Culture evolves all the time and the memes of personal taste swirl around us.
the only good thing Bay has ever done
Given this is his third one, it can’t be that hard to make a “Transformers” movie.
Seems to me that half the battle is getting funding, which is why so few "art movies’ ever see the light of day. Our dear Michael has Spielberg and Dreamworks behind him full throttle, so his work is half way done right there.
Well, I had an opportunity to see the shooting of this film, as a big part of it was done in Chicago. They were trying to shoot a car crash. No doubt, everything was just huge. People were really trying hard to create that sequence. Yes, I would agree with him, making ‘Transformers’ is hard, in this way. But, then, what goes on with that? It’s all about conceiving a film. Is it hard to conceive an art film? Or easy? How much it takes to conceive ‘Transformers’?
Piling a mountain of junk is hard, no doubt.
Clearly the guy is well out of his depth saying such things about how “easy” it is to make films based on intellect and emotion and that merit psychological and philosophical importance. None of us should have to hear this braindead arrogance as this braggart makes his way to the bank.
Yeah, it may be less of a technical feat to produce an art film, but it’s a lot harder to get butts in the seats.
The Transformers films are even stupid for action flicks though. It’s just visual high fructose corn syrup, without the character charisma and the kinetic logic that makes the genre entertaining.
JIRIN, I just want to add something. Producing an art film might be ‘less of a technological’ feat, but is it ‘less technical’?
it is true what he is saying about critics reviewing films without watching them
i remember the independent newspaper/website doing so in the film section… they’d sing praises of the latest art film and show little evidence in their writing of actually watching popular films
maybe the reviewers feel they would be ridiculed from their peers if they approached all films without bias
At least he’ll be doing something different from Transformers next…
sounds fun, maybe he could revive the careers of the Barbarian Brothers.
That’s a good point. It depends on your technique. Some art films just kind of follow the characters around with a hand camera. Others have delicately planned artistic shots with delicate lighting techniques. Michael Bay certainly couldn’t do what Bela Tarr does.
The sad part is to see this guy on Criterion. Two cheesy films that struggle mightily to be “important.” Pretty much sums up his cinematic “legacy.”