• Categories

Vanilla 1.1.4 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

 
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeJul 10th 2014
    True. But still. Criterion wouldn't have picked it up if they didn't think it was a great film.
    I am extremely serious.
    •  
      CommentAuthorBobdH
    • CommentTimeJul 10th 2014
    Well, I'm sure that's true to an extent. If they didn't think the film was great at certain levels I'm sure they would've deleted it from their site.

    The essay (written by Roger Ebert) says it all:
    http://www.criterion.com/current/posts/113-the-rock

    Many movies are not really about their stories at all, but about how they tell their stories, and The Rock is an example. The movie is a triumph of style, tone, and energy—an action picture that rises to the top of the genre because of a literate, witty screenplay and skilled craftsmanship in the direction and special effects.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeJul 10th 2014
    Thor wrote
    Steven wrote
    It would be much easier if you just said you enjoy his films because they look pretty, and leave it at that. That much I could understand.


    Yeah, but that wouldn't be correct. I think there's much MORE to his films and his style of filmmaking than that. You don't see this 'extra' value, and that's fine. But that doesn't mean I don't, and -- in fact -- that it isn't there.


    Oh I completely believe you see extra value. But that doesn't mean -and in fact- it is there.
  1. Thor wrote
    Oh, I'm definitely with on Tony Scott. Massively underrated as an artist, and he falls very much into the same category.

    I don't think it's a particular fruitful approach to look for developped characters in Bay's movies. In many ways, it's the very shallowness of their beings that is the point. Neither is a particularly good or original script. Not that it wouldn't be interesting to see him deal with that, but in many ways it would betray his filmic project.

    Bay is -- in my opinion -- about creating surface so brilliantly that it becomes art in itself. And you can quote me on that. smile


    The thing with Bay is that it's OK that it's not about character development. But at least he could get good performances from his actors.

    Tony did in something even as superficial as The Last Boy Scout. You're not gonna tell me that The Last Boy Scout is a Bergmanesque character study.
    http://www.filmmusic.pl - Polish Film Music Review Website
    •  
      CommentAuthorBobdH
    • CommentTimeJul 10th 2014 edited
    The thing is - 90% of modern mainstream and commercial films are superficial and following narrative cliche's, but are so tightly wrapped in an illusion of intelligence with the wider audience buying into that, that a director like Michael Bay - who at least puts more care in the visual style of his films and is clearly recognized by this style, but also doesn't hide the fact he merely wants to entertain an audience - might be among the most honest director in Hollywood. I just his modern films should've been more witty, I don't like bay's sense of humor - or attempts at.
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeJul 10th 2014
    BobdH wrote
    The thing is - 90% of modern mainstream and commercial films are superficial and following narrative cliche's, but are so tightly wrapped in an illusion of intelligence with the wider audience buying into that, that a director like Michael Bay - who at least puts more care in the visual style of his films and is clearly recognized by this style, but also doesn't hide the fact he merely wants to entertain an audience - might be among the most honest director in Hollywood. I just his modern films should've been more witty, I don't like bay's sense of humor - or attempts at.


    Yeah, that. I would also add that Bay's style is so instantly recognizable, far more than any other run-of-the-mill blockbuster. The Bay Stamp is so crucial to the film (and has obviously been emulated by a great many others since he blasted on to the scene in the 90s).
    I am extremely serious.
  2. Steven wrote
    Thor wrote
    Steven wrote
    It would be much easier if you just said you enjoy his films because they look pretty, and leave it at that. That much I could understand.


    Yeah, but that wouldn't be correct. I think there's much MORE to his films and his style of filmmaking than that. You don't see this 'extra' value, and that's fine. But that doesn't mean I don't, and -- in fact -- that it isn't there.


    Oh I completely believe you see extra value. But that doesn't mean -and in fact- it is there.


    Now, this is where it gets interesting, isn't it?
    Your assessment implies an emphatic concept of art. Art exists - so to speak - on its own volition. Even with humanity vanished and with no onlooker around the painting “Mona Lisa” would remain a work of art, not only a meaningless cluster of molecules.
    Any other approach, be it hermeneutics, a theory of intersubjective emergence or radical constructivism, would imply that any statement like “there is” or “there isn’t artistic value” is invalid. Thor and you are separate monades who’s “reality” is a mere construct of the mind based on sensual data. What Thor perceives is as valid and substantial in his world as are your perceptions for you.

    Pawel?
    Bach's music is vibrant and inspired.
  3. Yes, I do generally agree, but cinema, more than any art today, has much emphasis on what's called craft. In fact, in a way, while postmodern aesthetics do influence it quite a lot, at its core there is still the ancient and (by proxy) Renaissance view that it's art, that is craft. There is something that you could call a well-made film.

    I believe that reality is a psychological or even social construct, however there are some objective elements (purely objective) that have to be considered when it comes to assessing a filmmaker. Whether you film stories or arthouse, sometimes volatile in storytelling terms, stuff is fine and dandy.

    However, not really being capable of getting a good performance from an actor, no matter if you actually care about it being acted in a good way (a good way considering the film's convention, so Ralph Fiennes in The Grand Budapest Hotel is as brilliant as he is in Schindler's List, though the acting is totally different in both movies and not just because of playing different characters). Since Steve Buscemi in Armageddon I've never seen a really good performance in a Michael Bay film (OK, Turturro has really decent moments in Transformers).

    And it's not that the convention is different. Knowing that, say, Jon Voight delivers great performances throughout his career just to see him not being more/less restrained or hammy, but see him being more wooden than any tree in my garden... then it's Bay that has a problem.

    I can't really treat seriously a guy who walked away from directing an important character scene and leaving it with an assistant, just because he had an argument with his main star that listening to some rock classics to get in character is bullshit and he should listen to The Dark Knight instead. It's unforgivable!
    http://www.filmmusic.pl - Polish Film Music Review Website
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeJul 11th 2014 edited
    Let's not drag the discussion totally out of focus here.

    Again, I must reiterate that there is more to film than characters and people and even narrative. For many filmmakers, this might not even be a point of interest. If their goal is to prioritize other aspects of the filmatic expression, then that is absolutely fine and dandy. So I'm not sure why you're insisting on the lack of character depth and acting chops in Bay films, Pawel. This may be very important for you in your film viewing, but it's not that important in his style of filmmaking. It would be like criticizing Bob Dylan for not having better grasp of the symphonic idiom.
    I am extremely serious.
  4. The filmmaking style remark is very much off. I can give you directors who do the same stuff as he, even fit into the same group as you put Bay in and somehow the last thing I'd complain about in Man of Steel is the acting. Ridley Scott gets great performances out of his actors. To me the biggest testament of Spielberg's on-set mastery is that kids act VERY well in his movies. Tony Scott has some amazing performances (Crimson Tide, hell, even Christian Slater got to act well for him!). A pure stylist like Wes Anderson has AMAZING acting, even if it doesn't agree with the basic concept of realism in cinema.

    So I don't think it's about whether it's important for his filmmaking style. If he doesn't want his actors to convince the audience to the world he tries to show us (and it's a huge part of that!), then why does he even film people? Why not having a silent film using CGI, where he could have his beautiful visuals, big explosions, mayhem, whatever, but no human beings whatsoever?
    http://www.filmmusic.pl - Polish Film Music Review Website
  5. Damn, I'd actually see something like that!

    Also, Thor, can you explain why Bay has such a short average shot length with his tendency for pretty shot and almost impeccable (except hand-held) camera movement?
    http://www.filmmusic.pl - Polish Film Music Review Website
  6. I should know better than to express an opinion about film while a certain Norwegian is around. But who can resist?

    Can't believe anyone could think Michael Bay doesn't put emphasis on narrative and character. Sure there's a style at work, but it's never done anything other than tell the story at hand. I can't think of a single case where he's foregrounded style for any purpose other than articulating the narrative surface. Spielberg for his age -- more hyperbolic, more emphatic. The films are the epitome of the Save the Cat school. And I have no criticism of that. He has a lot of respect in Hollywood for being able to contain costs when making a film.

    Tony Scott on the other hand... now there's someone who played a bit more with the style-story balance. He could be resolutely classical, but there's a few films in there that foreground style at the expense of story, and that's when you know someone's really committed to the idea that it's about more than story. (Joe Wright comes to mind in this vein as well.)
    A butterfly thinks therefore I am
  7. PawelStroinski wrote
    Also, Thor, can you explain why Bay has such a short average shot length with his tendency for pretty shot and almost impeccable (except hand-held) camera movement?


    Because:
    - Being part of a disorienting moment is part of the cinema experience (the trick is whether that disorientation settles into a new equilibrium), as much as being part of a perfectly choreographed moment is
    - Sound links / music smooth over the most jagged of edits, anchoring the viewer (mind you if those links are absent, I can't explain it)
    - He and his editors are continually on amphetamines and cut the films on small laptop screens in models of kitchens where most of these films are watched... and in that context, it sort of makes sense. wink
    A butterfly thinks therefore I am
  8. What would you say about him working with actors?

    There's the man who can explain me stuff.
    http://www.filmmusic.pl - Polish Film Music Review Website
  9. I think he should try it sometime. wink

    I don't know... many's the director whose held the human element in contempt. We could argue that Malick has a bit of this in him, in that not everyone is a Caviezel/Chastain/Kurylenko in his eyes. Blue is the Warmest Color's director isn't getting any callbacks from his Palme D'or sharing actresses. For some it's even a strategy. Even the walk off set incident doesn't worry me so much. There's probably a great deal of Lord of the Rings that was shot without Peter Jackson being physically on set.

    The thing about him being a terrible human being to work with... Terrible. First artist in history to have fascist tendencies. Someone needs to put a stop to it. wink It's not right, but it's not unique either.
    A butterfly thinks therefore I am
  10. I don't mean his behavior on set (Kubrick, anyone?!), but why is the acting *so bad*?
    http://www.filmmusic.pl - Polish Film Music Review Website
  11. No subtext in performance, perhaps? It's only about what it seems to be about. The result is a somewhat rootless hyperbole that works for the broad tone of the piece but isn't recognisably human. (Hence you call it a bad performance -- because you don't believe that people in that moment would behave that way.)

    Keep in mind a certain amount of this is embedded in the script, which has likely been reverse-engineered from set pieces (things happen so other things can happen next), and therefore actors are talking about things that have to happen anyway, rather than their journey (and therefore characterisation) motivating the plot.

    Happened on his watch though. And for all his virtues with ye olde image craft and priorities towards that, characterisations don't have to be so lifeless. I'm sure there's a few academics who give him the benefit of the doubt and credit him with 'satirising the lack of depth in tentpole performances by indulging in it'. Yeah, that old intellectual double cross.
    A butterfly thinks therefore I am
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeJul 11th 2014
    Erik Woods wrote
    Bay is an awful feature film director. He should have never left the commercial and music video world where his style is a perfect fit. He has a fantastic eye but can't tell a good story to save his life.

    -Erik-


    Very spot-on points, Erik.
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeJul 11th 2014
    Sorry, but I don't get this obsession with characters and acting in this context, Pawel. This is not Bergman we're talking about. Is that really the most important criterion by which you judge any film, regardless of what the project is?

    I disagree with franz, by the way (unsurprisingly). While Bay does indeed HAVE actors and relies on classical storytelling as the paradigm to work within, creating deep relations and complexity with them is VERY far from his project. Quite the contrary, they're more like pawns that realize his bigger aims -- using sounds and images to create tableaux that are both entertaining and chockful of explicit poetry (who says that an explosion can't be poetic?).

    As for short average shot length, it's not something that I've particularly paid any attention to. It's a leftover from the music video aesthetic, I guess. It creates rhythm and pace that his images can work in and around. And it allows for moments of equilibrium, as franz points out. There are plenty of long shots in TRANSFORMERS, as far as I can remember. It's neither a totally wild shaky cam thing like CLOVERFIELD or a constant flash of edits, like Tony Scott's DOMINO. It's as rapid and stable as the film requires.
    I am extremely serious.
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeJul 11th 2014
    PawelStroinski wrote
    Probably he regards his own fanbase as a bunch of idiots as well.


    Well...? wink
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
  12. Thor wrote
    Sorry, but I don't get this obsession with characters and acting in this context, Pawel. This is not Bergman we're talking about. Is that really the most important criterion by which you judge any film, regardless of what the project is?

    I disagree with franz, by the way (unsurprisingly). While Bay does indeed HAVE actors and relies on classical storytelling as the paradigm to work within, creating deep relations and complexity with them is VERY far from his project. Quite the contrary, they're more like pawns that realize his bigger aims -- using sounds and images to create tableaux that are both entertaining and chockful of explicit poetry (who says that an explosion can't be poetic?).

    As for short average shot length, it's not something that I've particularly paid any attention to. It's a leftover from the music video aesthetic, I guess. It creates rhythm and pace that his images can work in and around. And it allows for moments of equilibrium, as franz points out. There are plenty of long shots in TRANSFORMERS, as far as I can remember. It's neither a totally wild shaky cam thing like CLOVERFIELD or a constant flash of edits, like Tony Scott's DOMINO. It's as rapid and stable as the film requires.


    The key here is relatability. If the characters are interchangeable it just ends up being a bunch of (often random) handsome shots featuring stuff you don't give a crap about. And in pure theory, there are small, intimate scenes (which Bay reportedly wants to be done away with as soon as possible and doesn't really give the leverage of more takes).

    It's actually quite interesting that except a somewhat failed attempt in Armageddon (Willis mostly broods), totally failed in Pearl Harbor, and, for his standards, very subtly achieved in The Rock, Bay is not interested in having his characters charismatic. If he could do more with that, I think the point he wants to make would be clearer.

    I'd like to read up more about his feud with Bruce Willis (one of his lesser performances anyway) about Armageddon which came about like 10 years after the film was made. What was the point in Willis lashing out at Bay in the public so much time after the film was made (and seemingly the work on the set was quite fun, Willis even could jokingly direct a scene during a take, based on the gag reel!)? Ed Harris reportedly downright hated Bay on The Rock (even as it's rumored or known that Simpson, Bay and Harris worked very hard to make Hummel actually relatable, which to me is one of the best things about that film, almost to the point of being an exercise in ethics!), but then suddenly he got back on Pain and Gain.
    http://www.filmmusic.pl - Polish Film Music Review Website
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeJul 11th 2014 edited
    PawelStroinski wrote
    The key here is relatability. If the characters are interchangeable it just ends up being a bunch of (often random) handsome shots featuring stuff you don't give a crap about. And in pure theory, there are small, intimate scenes (which Bay reportedly wants to be done away with as soon as possible and doesn't really give the leverage of more takes).


    I think you're simplifying things too much here. There are any number of ways to relate to a film that goes beyond characters. And it isn't necessarily reduced to "handsome shots". A landscape shot a certain way and combined with sounds and music a certain way can communicate a great deal on its own that range from the rational to the irrational -- symbolism, mood, emotions, you name it.

    Art films and art installation films have been doing this since the dawn of movies, and there's no reason why a similar philsophy can't be transcribed to a big Hollywood production too (although the parameters are different).

    While stories and characters are integral to Hollywood productions, film as an artform doesn't end or begin there. The genius of Michael Bay and other directors in his category is that they're able to use these elements in a traditional sense while really pushing the attention or the priority elsewhere.
    I am extremely serious.
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeJul 11th 2014
    I like some of the stuff he did and you do make some good points here, but putting 'genius" and "michael bay" in the same sentence is brave, indeed wink
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
  13. The problem is that Bay is UNABLE to use them in traditional sense.
    http://www.filmmusic.pl - Polish Film Music Review Website
  14. If Bay was someone like Wim Wenders who just does his stuff outside of a certain approach, then it's fine and dandy. But what he does is filming something I expect to be mainstream spectacle on a certain level. So I have every right to expect my Hollywood film to be crafted into even a weak story and make at least a faint sense (one of my points against the classic actioners of the 1980s is that some of them, however big cult status they attained, they're... not exactly good pieces of filmmaking craft).

    About his acting, it occured to me that he has non-charismatic characters speak such charismatic and over-the-top stuff that it just doesn't ring any true. Not many people handled the "everyday-life American" pathos-ridden speech as directors.... and Bay is especially worse at that, because he fails to instill any bit of charisma in that. Had he quit the pathos, the basic idea of his where an everyday man gets into a much larger scheme of things and becomes a hero (Armageddon, the Transformers trilogy, to an extent The Rock!) would work quite brilliantly, but it also features so much of, what I feel is, very misguided Americana (misguided in terms of performance, not story), that I think this is something Bay fails at.

    The thing is that what you mention as his artistic perks in Hollywood terms (be it just Hollywood or general filmmaking, I tend to lean towards the latter, because even European cinema does have some of a sense of actually pushing the narrative forward, even as static stuff as Bergman's Autumn Sonata, Silence, or even Wenders' Wings of Desire or Alice in the Cities; and he's a quite atmospheric director!) can be seen also as basic errors in terms of craft.

    I don't think even Bay would defend himself with your argumentation. As a person working in Hollywood, he probably perceives himself as a storyteller of massive proportions, and his commercial success would only prove his own notion right.
    http://www.filmmusic.pl - Polish Film Music Review Website
    •  
      CommentAuthorsdtom
    • CommentTimeJul 11th 2014
    Demetris wrote
    I like some of the stuff he did and you do make some good points here, but putting 'genius" and "michael bay" in the same sentence is brave, indeed wink


    Agree with Demetris on this statement.
    Tom smile
    listen to more classical music!
  15. So do I. I feel Bay's films are OK popcorn flicks to pass an evening with but nothing I necessarily need to own on DVD for repeated viewings.

    Volker
    Bach's music is vibrant and inspired.
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeJul 11th 2014 edited
    PawelStroinski wrote
    If Bay was someone like Wim Wenders who just does his stuff outside of a certain approach, then it's fine and dandy. But what he does is filming something I expect to be mainstream spectacle on a certain level. So I have every right to expect my Hollywood film to be crafted into even a weak story and make at least a faint sense (one of my points against the classic actioners of the 1980s is that some of them, however big cult status they attained, they're... not exactly good pieces of filmmaking craft).


    I've never seen things as black/white as that. It's not just Hollywood against everything else. In fact, this is very much what my university thesis was about (although related to film music) -- the moments within Hollywood films where the priority is pushed from narrative logic to 'spectacular ecstasy', as I call it. The story is never gone completely here, but the importance lies more in what the visuals and audio communicate on their own. In my thesis, I named these two forms of film viewing as 'character-bound engrossment' vs. 'audiovisual experience'. It is within this dialectic that Bay excels. And Scott. And Spielberg. And Burton. And Snyder. And a whole lot of other directors that explore this in slightly different ways.

    I don't think even Bay would defend himself with your argumentation. As a person working in Hollywood, he probably perceives himself as a storyteller of massive proportions, and his commercial success would only prove his own notion right.


    I agree, actually. One can argue back and forth which of these elements are conscious and which are not. One would need to confront Bay himself to get a proper answer as far as intention is concerned. But as an outside critic, I'm free to identify certain stylistic trademarks that I see in his output. The autonomy of the text and all that.
    I am extremely serious.
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeJul 11th 2014 edited
    Captain Future wrote
    So do I. I feel Bay's films are OK popcorn flicks to pass an evening with but nothing I necessarily need to own on DVD for repeated viewings.

    Volker


    That's fine, although it is that very prejudice I like to confront, i.e. when he's brushed aside as 'mere popcorn flicks' and 'pretty pictures' etc. They are definitely that, but I think they are much more as well. Unlike most other action directors these days, there's actually a STYLE and a GRAVITAS and a STAMP to his movies which puts him in a different league.

    I can watch Bay films over and over again, and find delicious new details every single time -- details that are delightfully "Bay".
    I am extremely serious.
  16. Style and stamp is something I'd agree wholeheartedly with. But because of the arguments I mentioned previously, I do refuse giving Bay gravitas. He wants to be pretty heavy in terms of emotional intensity, but I think it's quite empty on a philosophical level, so to speak. Ironically, if you are right about him being a "man of the moment" (which he very well may be, knowing that he's not actually interested in even filming the human factor of his material).

    I'd like you to explain the character-bound engrossment, because I don't quite understand the term at the moment. However, if that means picking a subjective perspective and sticking with it, even for a moment, since he dropped the circular tracking shot (which I love to death, though I believe he could make them a tad longer), I don't think he excels in that. That's a moment, a singular shot of genius, I believe. If, as a filmmaker, I would have to take anything from Michael Bay it would be that precise thing.

    Scott, Spielberg and Scott's late brother, are experts in the subjective element. Engrossment, immersion, that's the kind of thing I am looking for in a film (and the script in a Hollywood environment may help with that big time, this is why we disagree so much about American Gangster, I guess!). The problem is that with Bay I feel him trying all these great visual things, but actually failing to immerse (engross!) me in the film's world.

    Another great example of immersive filmmaking is Alfonso Cuaron. The immersive element (even in 2D, as my sight disallows me to watch 3D stuff) of Gravity was something that was an utter shock for me, even if part of it was having pure silence before all the musical ruckus hit.
    http://www.filmmusic.pl - Polish Film Music Review Website