• Categories

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

 
    • CommentAuthorTimmer
    • CommentTimeJul 10th 2014 edited
    Steven wrote
    They are when the target is so clear, yes.


    Targets?
    On Friday I ate a lot of dust and appeared orange near the end of the day ~ Bregt
    •  
      CommentAuthorsdtom
    • CommentTimeJul 10th 2014
    The discussion is heating up. I'm not participating just following it.
    Tom smile
    listen to more classical music!
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeJul 10th 2014
    sdtom wrote
    The discussion is heating up. I'm not participating just following it.
    Tom smile


    Actually, it pretty much cooled down before it started as the desire to engage in constructive discussion was absent.
    I am extremely serious.
    •  
      CommentAuthorsdtom
    • CommentTimeJul 10th 2014
    heat it up again Thor
    listen to more classical music!
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeJul 10th 2014
    For Odin!
    I am extremely serious.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeJul 10th 2014
    It's good to admit your reasons for liking Bay have an absence of construction, but don't be too hard on yourself.
    •  
      CommentAuthorsdtom
    • CommentTimeJul 10th 2014
    Steven wrote
    It's good to admit your reasons for liking Bay have an absence of construction, but don't be too hard on yourself.


    a low blow
    listen to more classical music!
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeJul 10th 2014
    But not good enough to bait me in.
    I am extremely serious.
    •  
      CommentAuthorsdtom
    • CommentTimeJul 10th 2014
    you're a very intelligent man
    Tom smile
    listen to more classical music!
  1. Well, I'll join in and hope to really hear the arguments.

    All the directors you mentioned, except David Lynch, who makes purely experience-based movies, do have a sense of more traditional storytelling in terms of shot A actually does lead to shot B. In case of Ridley, I feel that his non-story visual elements are actually a layer that is put over the more traditional story element (case in point for me: Black Rain - and don't mind me not adding spoiler warning to a now-25 year old film: when Charlie dies and Masa has the whole "gift ceremony" with Nick, there is an overhead shot, a slow, if I may say so, "rummaging" over Osaka with Hans' theme in a somber arrangement, basically a flyover, it has two meanings - first it is the traditional narrative "insert" that shows that the day changed and it is also representative of the character's emotions, a very indirect subjective "statement" so to speak; same for Alien which delivers story information while all the Freudian elements are intact, and so on).

    I get it that directors can be more than story, that they have, once in a while, purely cinematic elements that don't add up in terms of the narrative, but create a mood, visually present a philosophical point, or as is the case of Terrence Malick, present a narrative in a non-linear and stream-of-consciousness way, where his much-lambasted voice-overs (with the idea being that the most simple words ask the questions that not necessarily have to be answered, but have to be asked) and music (classical or score, as is the case of The Thin Red Line and Days of Heaven to an extent). In fact, Michael Mann is a director strangely missing from your list.

    I get that even strong storytellers make movies that aren't necessarily strong plots, in fact some quite popular and praised action films have an almost non-existent plot, but the script somehow manages to come forward.

    My biggest problem with Bay is not just the atrocious acting (the aforementioned Pearl Harbor is an example of getting some HUGE and amazing actors who suddenly can't act, wasting Ewan McGregor and Scarlett Johannsson, yes, she can act, in The Island is also a "work of art") or weak scripts. The biggest problem with Bay is that while his shots are all very handsome (though, I guess you'd disagree with me, but I think that Bay is not very good at hand-held, whenever he goes there he makes things more confusing that gritty or immersive), his films are basically not just, for me, a cinematic project that goes beyond traditional storytelling. His films are narrative non-sequiturs with the editing seemingly very random, just to combine a nice shot with another very nice shot. You can try to add art into a mainstream film, even Tony Scott did better (Man of Fire!) and worse (Domino!) with that. But comparing a radically subjective piece of filmmaking like Man on Fire with something like Transformers would be very unfair to the late Tony.

    Bay has moments of brilliance, I'll give him that. Two things I really always LOVED about his style - the circular shot around a confused/stressed/lost character (or two in Bad Boys) is a great subjective idea. I also loved his floor-level tracking shots in The Rock and Bad Boys, I think it crops up in Armageddon too. But since then, or at least since Pearl Harbor, those went strangely missing from his work. Transformers 1 was something I surprisingly liked. The Island was quite great (though could have been better) in the first half until it went bananas and incoherent when they actually left the place.

    But I am boycotting new Bay films (and yes, that includes Pain and Gain) since the second Transformers and I still would like Bay to return my money for that.
    http://www.filmmusic.pl - Polish Film Music Review Website
    • CommentAuthorTimmer
    • CommentTimeJul 10th 2014
    Hulk-throws-bear!
    On Friday I ate a lot of dust and appeared orange near the end of the day ~ Bregt
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeJul 10th 2014 edited
    Well, thanks for actual arguments, Pawel. That's a level on which I'm ready to discuss.

    I've always felt there's a direct link between more art-oriented directors (whether it's Tarkovsky or Antonioni or Lynch) and those directors inside Hollywood that subscribe to 'form is content' and an audiovisual way of communicating. The only difference is that the former don't use story as a priority at all, while the latter use the story as a tool for what you correctly labeled experience-related cinema.

    Michael Bay is not about storytelling. Like Michel Gondry or Zack Snyder, he's transcribing his background as a visual artist in ads and music videos to the feature film format. He's an auteur in the truest sense, infusing each film with his own themes and audiovisual trademarks (the low-angle shot, the slo mow, the tinted colours, the aesthetics of the spectacular and so on). He's in many ways the natural extension of what Tom Gunning called "the cinema of attractions" in early cinema.

    PAIN & GAIN was severely misunderstood as mere surface, while in actuality it was quite a subversive film (intended or not), using the mise-en-scene as commentary. The same is true for the new TRANSFORMERS. It's a plethora of setpiece ideas, realized in spectacular ways.

    Example: The early scene where Mark Wahlberg has a tete-a-tete with his daughter. The dialogue is silly, the acting is stale and the narrative significance is minimal. But he saturates the scene so beautifully -- sunset beaming across the fields, Jablonsky's ethereal voices, a slightly swirling camera -- that it becomes a commentary and value in itself. It's the ultimate postmodern film.

    If one "gets" what Bay is doing, one is able to appreciate this philosophy. I'm not saying that everything he does is great (PEARL HARBOR was a miss, as previously noted), but it's a necessary first step. If one doesn't get it, or refuses to acknowledge it, I can certainly see why one's evaluation is negative.
    I am extremely serious.
  2. What are his themes, if you could divulge them?

    Also the problem I have with Bay is that I get that his visuals are brilliant, but except that they don't connect in any logical way... why does he cut these brilliant shots so short?

    Actually, that's also a problem I have with John Woo. He may have the most brilliant shot on Earth, but often it's like 2 seconds long, so before I can actually marvel in the mise en scene, it already cuts to another shot (though in the case of Woo, the editing is much more tight on the storytelling level, it actually *does* make sense).

    The low-angle shot (which as I said, I adore) went missing in the later part of his career, and interestingly, it was present in the moment of his career, where the sense of storytelling in him seemed much bigger. In Bad Boys and The Rock, hell, even in Armageddon when he did went quite crazy at times, there is care into keeping the inner logic of the film intact.

    Snyder, well I saw only one film of his and that happened to be Man of Steel. After that I do not intend to watch anything he made, including his earlier stuff. There is a personal issue I took with the film as well, for something I could identify with so much on a very personal level, I found the film so banal that it offended me.
    http://www.filmmusic.pl - Polish Film Music Review Website
    •  
      CommentAuthorErik Woods
    • CommentTimeJul 10th 2014 edited
    -DELETED-
    host and executive producer of THE CINEMATIC SOUND RADIO PODCAST | www.cinematicsound.net | www.facebook.com/cinematicsound | I HAVE TINNITUS!
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeJul 10th 2014
    Thor wrote
    Well, thanks for actual arguments, Pawel. That's a level on which I'm ready to discuss.
    [...]


    You know, I'm sure you could make the same argument for a cookbook. Open any page at random, and you could apply the same logic for its artistic integrity simply through the way you have interpreted the words: one part flour, two parts margarine, which would of course be a reflection of the segregated societies humanity have endured through the ages, and the integration of those societies to produce a new culture, and its subtleties are either understood by the reader or they are not. Which is to say you give Bay far too much credit simply by making shit up to justify the shear mind-numbing stupidity of his films. 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.

    My biggest gripe with Bay is not his lack of narrative skill, not even his inability to connect to characters and have anything remotely resembling reflective thought, but his insistence on laughing at people. He still seems to find much amusement with being homosexual, for example. It's not that these things can't be made fun of, they can and they should be, but his approach is a rather distasteful, and unreflective one - there is literally nothing going on under the surface. He is the dumb high school jock who has managed to make a successful career of bringing that vision to the screen.
  3. I think some of the worst stuff he did is actually attacking his critics. His approach is generally "fuck the haters, they'll see the movie anyway". Well, this one won't. And what will he do to me because of that? That I don't feel he's worth 3 hours of my time even if I didn't watch it legally?

    The thing is the guy wouldn't explain himself. He'd simply laugh at my arguments and said it earns money. Probably he regards his own fanbase as a bunch of idiots as well.
    http://www.filmmusic.pl - Polish Film Music Review Website
  4. Steven wrote
    Thor wrote
    Well, thanks for actual arguments, Pawel. That's a level on which I'm ready to discuss.
    [...]


    You know, I'm sure you could make the same argument for a cookbook. Open any page at random, and you could apply the same logic for its artistic integrity simply through the way you have interpreted the words: one part flour, two parts margarine, which would of course be a reflection of the segregated societies humanity have endured through the ages, and the integration of those societies to produce a new culture, and its subtleties are either understood by the reader or they are not. Which is to say you give Bay far too much credit simply by making shit up to justify the shear mind-numbing stupidity of his films. 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.

    My biggest gripe with Bay is not his lack of narrative skill, not even his inability to connect to characters and have anything remotely resembling reflective thought, but his insistence on laughing at people. He still seems to find much amusement with being homosexual, for example. It's not that these things can't be made fun of, they can and they should be, but his approach is a rather distasteful, and unreflective one - there is literally nothing going on under the surface. He is the dumb high school jock who has managed to make a successful career of bringing that vision to the screen.


    He claims to be an illegitimate child of John Frankenheimer, too. When it was pointed out that the DNA test was negative, he claimed that the test wasn't precise enough biggrin
    http://www.filmmusic.pl - Polish Film Music Review Website
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeJul 10th 2014 edited
    PawelStroinski wrote
    What are his themes, if you could divulge them?


    Any number of things. Strong female characters presented through what only appears to be a misygynistic presentation. Class journeys (sometimes presented as a pathetic journey, as in PAIN & GAIN) and rise of the everyday man. Micro vs. macro.

    But the 'auteur' debate as applied to Bay rages wildly on the interwebz. There are probably more against than pro, like myself. I like to think there's a separate sub-category called the 'action auteur' or the 'blockbuster auteur', into which he neatly fits (alongside Snyder, Paul W.S. Anderson and a few others).

    Also, the thematic undercurrents are less important than the stylistic ones. It's mostly a "moment-based" philosophy (the "pregnant moment", as Roland Barthes said) that owes more to music video aesthetics. How can you envelop the spectator into a particular moment through audiovisuals? A moment that has a subtext, but that hammers it in explicitly through the tool of spectacle?
    I am extremely serious.
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeJul 10th 2014
    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.
    I am extremely serious.
    •  
      CommentAuthorErik Woods
    • CommentTimeJul 10th 2014
    I read Thor's comments and in my mind all I hear is THIS!

    -Erik-
    host and executive producer of THE CINEMATIC SOUND RADIO PODCAST | www.cinematicsound.net | www.facebook.com/cinematicsound | I HAVE TINNITUS!
    •  
      CommentAuthorBobdH
    • CommentTimeJul 10th 2014
    Great discussion going on here, people. Interesting arguments on all sides and something I'd gladly join if in person, but enjoying the conversation.
  5. To summarize, is any of this discussion about film music?
    The views expressed in this post are entirely my own and do not reflect the opinions of maintitles.net, or for that matter, anyone else. http://www.racksandtags.com/falkirkbairn
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeJul 10th 2014
    FalkirkBairn wrote
    To summarize, is any of this discussion about film music?


    No. But it's about projects that Jablonsky is involved in.
    I am extremely serious.
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeJul 10th 2014
    Erik Woods wrote
    I read Thor's comments and in my mind all I hear is THIS!

    -Erik-


    Well, then you would be WRONG, as this is a discussion I've had many times in various circles -- even inside our own staff at Montages. There are few directors who are more divisive than Bay these days; always grounds for discussion.
    I am extremely serious.
  6. To me the most misunderstood auteur in action is Tony Scott, but there I actually blame his script choices. I think he'd be more valued in hindsight if we had more of Spy Games or Crimson Tides and less of Top Guns (as much as a guilty pleasure that one is!), Bevely Hills Cop II's or Taking of Pelham 1-2-3s.

    If I had to compare Tony Scott to Bay (who, BTW, stolen some of the Tony Scott style, he even had Tony's editor on Bad Boys!), I'd say that Tony had more in terms of consequence in his decisions (Man on Fire, a severely underrated and misunderstood film, I think) than Bay.

    One thing I'd like Bay to work with is a really great script, if we go with the comparison, something on par with True Romance. It's not that much about the dialogue, it's about a very strong story, very well-built characters. I wonder what he'd do with that. Give him a genre he never did, even an action twist on a noir, something that demands a very strong stylist. Something that deserves more intelligence than just blowing things up in the background.

    If he does such a thing well, THEN I will be happy to reconsider my opinion about him. The thing is that defending work that has basic craft errors (awful editing, atrocious performance directing, a HUGE part of the basic craft of film directing) doesn't mean that much to me.

    I mean, if we mention auteurs, even if the film itself is far from perfect, Ridley has never had a really bad performance (with the possible exception of Tom Cruise in Legend, who has cringe-worthy moments, and certain scenes of Marton Csokas in Kingdom of Heaven, which is untypically hammy for Ridley's standards). Even something lesser like Body of Lies and Prometheus have the likes of Mark Strong (menacingly chilling) and Michael Fassbender.

    I mention Prometheus as a lesser work, though it's Ridley's piece of directing (and yes, I'm standing by this) in some time. It's a very inspired film in terms of the craft of filmmaking (again, actor directing - contrary to the popular opinion, I think that Theron was quite great; editing), but, I believe philosophically misguided (mostly due to incoherency) and badly written in terms of internal logic of the narrative (even if you make the most artsy thing, unless you go through a massive non-linear plot, you don't go from A to B through Z).
    http://www.filmmusic.pl - Polish Film Music Review Website
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeJul 10th 2014 edited
    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
    I am extremely serious.
    •  
      CommentAuthorErik Woods
    • CommentTimeJul 10th 2014 edited
    PawelStroinski wrote
    One thing I'd like Bay to work with is a really great script, if we go with the comparison, something on par with True Romance. It's not that much about the dialogue, it's about a very strong story, very well-built characters. I wonder what he'd do with that. Give him a genre he never did, even an action twist on a noir, something that demands a very strong stylist. Something that deserves more intelligence than just blowing things up in the background.


    He wouldn't know what to do with it, Pawel. Not enough 'splosions for him to whack off to! Christ, even Bay has no clue what he does for a living.

    -Erik-
    host and executive producer of THE CINEMATIC SOUND RADIO PODCAST | www.cinematicsound.net | www.facebook.com/cinematicsound | I HAVE TINNITUS!
    •  
      CommentAuthorBobdH
    • CommentTimeJul 10th 2014 edited
    The closest Michael Bay came to this was with The Rock - a film that was aware of the characters' emotions, motivations and had at its core an interesting conflict. I'd love to see him tackle such a subject again.

    A journalist once described Spielberg's Temple of Doom as "you shouldn't go to a roller coaster and complain it's not a cathedral". I feel this describes Bay's career perfectly.
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeJul 10th 2014
    BobdH wrote
    The closest Michael Bay came to this was with The Rock - a film that was aware of the characters' emotions, motivations and had at its core an interesting conflict. I'd love to see him tackle such a subject again.


    Agreed. That's a modern masterpiece already, exemplified by its inclusion into the Criterion family. One of the best films of the 90s, regardless of style or mode.
    I am extremely serious.
    •  
      CommentAuthorBobdH
    • CommentTimeJul 10th 2014 edited
    (Actually, The Rock is included in the Criterion collection because of a rights issue - in their early days they had a tougher bargaining position towards Disney and they could only get a certain film if in a package deal with The Rock - but I wouldn't want to throw ash on your point because it's a fine film indeed wink).