Categories
Vanilla 1.1.4 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
STEVE JABLONSKY
-
- CommentAuthorfranz_conrad
- CommentTimeJul 11th 2014
Thor wrote
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?).
.
Hey I never said he's interested in deep characters or complexity. Quite the opposite. I said he doesn't address more than what the story is about on the surface. And to that end he is very committed. But Thor, you know and love these films better than me. If style is creating a subtext other than the notion that an expensive film should look the part, do tell. I think I need my irony to distinguish itself more clearly from its opposite, emphatic reinforcement. I can take the idea that an altman or a tati stereotype is intended, or that malick's women are allegorical.
By the way, you give him too much credit. calling a 'career' or 'brand' a 'project' is pretentious. Not even Bay has the gall to do that.
For poetic explosions, ill head to HOSTAGE by Florence Siri.A butterfly thinks therefore I am -
- CommentTimeJul 11th 2014 edited
PawelStroinski wrote
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.
Sure. But therein lies the appeal and the purpose, the way I see it. It's philosophical on a meta-level -- so self-conscious in its mise-en-scene that the moments stand out far beyond the classical Hollywood narrative it operates within. Few directors inside Hollywood manage to make these shifts as beautifully and overtly as Bay. It's almost a parody on emotional intensity, as expressed through excessive means. That's the gravitas right there, although not perhaps the one you had in mind.
I'd like you to explain the character-bound engrossment, because I don't quite understand the term at the moment.
I'm not sure this is the time and place for recounting all of my thesis, as that would get us too far off the path, but it's a term I coined based on classical narrative identification structures, especially Murray Smith's three forms of viewer identification (recognition, allignment and allegiance). What I meant is that Bay excels at the shifts between this and the 'audiovisual experience'-type of viewing, which is less reliant on identification and narrative understanding.I am extremely serious. -
- CommentTimeJul 11th 2014
franz_conrad wrote
By the way, you give him too much credit. calling a 'career' or 'brand' a 'project' is pretentious. Not even Bay has the gall to do that.
Well, it was a word that felt appropriate at the time. If 'approach' or 'ideology' feels better, that's fine by me.
If style is creating a subtext other than the notion that an expensive film should look the part, do tell. I think I need my irony to distinguish itself more clearly from its opposite, emphatic reinforcement.
Then I urge you to see PAIN & GAIN again. Rarely has he been more self-ironical, which again makes it easier to see all the things he's known for. I think we've been mentioning a long list of thematic and stylistic traits in this thread already.I am extremely serious. -
- CommentAuthorfranz_conrad
- CommentTimeJul 11th 2014 edited
I must confess I haven't seen that one. It's a while since I've seen a new Michael bay (which makes me not a very good person to spar with, but in fairness I'm more generous to him than many here).
As for style traits-- yes, we need no list. What I do need to know is the content of this style?
What does it mean when you depict this content this way? All I can see is that it's narrative surface.
I know what Tarantino's style does to his content, or Godard, or
Costa gavras... But what is the meaning of the Michael bay style? Get specific.A butterfly thinks therefore I am -
- CommentAuthorPawelStroinski
- CommentTimeJul 11th 2014
I agree with Michael here, however after Transformers 2 I had such a bad opinion about Bay, that I plain refused to see anything else, so I ignored Pain and Gain completely (and saw only half of TF3).
Bay's films are just about the surface. A very pretty surface, but there is no subtext whatsoever. The wooden acting by even great actors support my theory.http://www.filmmusic.pl - Polish Film Music Review Website -
- CommentTimeJul 11th 2014 edited
Thor wrote
PawelStroinski wrote
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.
Sure. But therein lies the appeal and the purpose, the way I see it. It's philosophical on a meta-level -- so self-conscious in its mise-en-scene that the moments stand out far beyond the classical Hollywood narrative it operates within. Few directors inside Hollywood manage to make these shifts as beautifully and overtly as Bay. It's almost a parody on emotional intensity, as expressed through excessive means. That's the gravitas right there, although not perhaps the one you had in mind.
Never have I heard such blatant bullshit put so beautifully. I imagine you find much meaning behind the fish-slapping sketch from Monty Python too? -
- CommentAuthorPawelStroinski
- CommentTimeJul 11th 2014
Actually bad example, Steven.
I think it would be quite easy to apply for example Albert Camus and his philosophy of absurd to Monty Python? Stretching it? Yeah, probably. Convincing and probable? Yeah, definitely.http://www.filmmusic.pl - Polish Film Music Review Website -
- CommentTimeJul 11th 2014
Thor wrote
It's philosophical on a meta-level -- so self-conscious in its mise-en-scene that the moments stand out far beyond the classical Hollywood narrative it operates within. Few directors inside Hollywood manage to make these shifts as beautifully and overtly as Bay. It's almost a parody on emotional intensity, as expressed through excessive means. That's the gravitas right there, although not perhaps the one you had in mind.
I must disagree here. I think it's quite clear with Bay that what comes from within somehow permeates what comes from without - regardless of the machinations of the troubled mind, the feeling and the very humanity lies not on the meniscus of his consciousness but is layered fourfold. Ironing over the cracks in the garment of his philosophy may suit you but is clearly not what was intended - you are not understanding at the most fundamental of levels. The postmodern tendency cannot be found by scraping around the brow. -
- CommentTimeJul 11th 2014
PawelStroinski wrote
Actually bad example, Steven.
I think it would be quite easy to apply for example Albert Camus and his philosophy of absurd to Monty Python? Stretching it? Yeah, probably. Convincing and probable? Yeah, definitely.
Is it though? Intent surely counts, and I think it is fairly well documented that this particular sketch was done purely for shits and giggles. You could apply all sorts of philosophical interpretations to something, and that's fine, but to go beyond that and credit the original author with such fanciful musings is just completely misguided (or weirdtarded as Erik might say), which is what Thor is seemingly trying to do.
Fine, you see beauty in a turd. But that doesn't mean the arsehole that made it is an artist. -
- CommentTimeJul 11th 2014
Further to my previous post, one of the most brilliant things about Bay's intelligence - and it's so sad that most people are just too stupid to realise it - is the way he uses the age of his actors to emphasise his real meaning. It's that old thing, Herr Willy Brand and everything. Some of the actors he casts are aged 22 - and some are aged 23. The truly brilliant thing here is that some of them are aged neither 22 nor 23. You can see it in all his films - just look.
And the women - especially ones with darker hair but just a hint of magnolia when they're in the sunlight - have you ever noticed that sometimes the camera is positioned very slightly to the left of centre? I wish you guys were clever enough to realise what that means. The astonishing way he can then shoot the same woman but from a different angle - sorry, I need to lie down. -
- CommentAuthorfranz_conrad
- CommentTimeJul 11th 2014 edited
Irony needs to distinguish itself more clearly from its opposite. When you're not being cleverer, you're being just as dumb. This is how we know Elliot goldenthal and perhaps Michael giacchino are deeper artists than some of the films they've had to score. It's what tells us harmony korine might not be entirely genuine with Springbreakers. And it's what tells me bay's project is to say whats happening in the most emphatic way. He goes for the spectacle (in some ways that don't always help it-- zack Snyder shares some flaws here), and this is why two hour plus works don't connect with many.
Great for teens, tentpoles and those who don't need the odd gap between what it seems like and what it is in their entertainment. Quite possibly conscious on his part, either because he doesn't see the value, lacks the strengths, or thinks he will compromise his brand if he tries it. But if so, you want to read that interview with the man where he reveals his artistic sensibility. Or see those short films where he cuts loose away from the narrative and stylistic confines of the tentpole. Perhaps pain and gain is the thing, and if it is, it will do quite a recovery job.A butterfly thinks therefore I am -
- CommentAuthorPawelStroinski
- CommentTimeJul 11th 2014
Steven wrote
PawelStroinski wrote
Actually bad example, Steven.
I think it would be quite easy to apply for example Albert Camus and his philosophy of absurd to Monty Python? Stretching it? Yeah, probably. Convincing and probable? Yeah, definitely.
Is it though? Intent surely counts, and I think it is fairly well documented that this particular sketch was done purely for shits and giggles. You could apply all sorts of philosophical interpretations to something, and that's fine, but to go beyond that and credit the original author with such fanciful musings is just completely misguided (or weirdtarded as Erik might say), which is what Thor is seemingly trying to do.
Fine, you see beauty in a turd. But that doesn't mean the arsehole that made it is an artist.
In case of work of art, it's quite difficult. I luckily dealt mostly with stuff by people that are already dead, but you can apply certain ideas to a work of art and if it repeats in that work of art - you can apply it to the author's body of work. You have to ask whether the author (artist) could plausibly know the context you are referring to (in case of literature, especially old literature, the rule of thumb is that if it sounds like a Bible quote, then it is one, for example; same for certain philosophical ideas - you didn't need to know Plato's body of work, sometimes you indeed couldn't, to use Plato's philosophical ideas, because they were permeating the cultural work of the period, etc.).
If certain elements appear you have to read into it, as an interpreter, and you have to verify if the author could have such musings (if he seems to be intelligent, as is mostly the case, then, probably, indeed, he could). It's not about factuality here. Facts are used as a negative, not as a positive (a fictional example: let's say that a Spielberg film looks like Van Gogh. And let's say that checking his biography he never heard of the guy. If you have it confirmed, then he couldn't possibly refer to Van Gogh. If the data is that you can't say he didn't know Van Gogh, you assume he did, so "we don't really know" generally works as a confirmation).http://www.filmmusic.pl - Polish Film Music Review Website -
- CommentTimeJul 11th 2014
Yes, all well and good Pawel. But remember, we're talking about Michael Bay here. He's a fuckwit who makes fuckwitted films for other fuckwits. -
- CommentTimeJul 11th 2014 edited
franz_conrad wrote
Iirony needs to distinguish itself more clearly from its opposite. When you're not being cleverer, you're being just as dumb. This is how we know Elliot goldenthal and perhaps Michael giacchino are deeper artists than some of the films they've had to score. It's what tells us harmony korine might not be entirely genuine with Springbreakers. And it's what tells me bay's project is to say whats happening in the most emphatic way. He goes for the spectacle (in some ways that don't always help it-- zack Snyder shares some flaws here), and this is why two hour plus works don't connect with many.
Great for teens, tentpoles and those who don't need the odd gap between what it seems like and what it is in their entertainment. Quite possibly conscious on his part, either because he doesn't see the value, lacks the strengths, or thinks he will compromise his brand if he tries it. But if so, you want to read that interview with the man where he reveals his artistic sensibility. Or see those short films where he cuts loose away from the narrative and stylistic confines of the tentpole. Perhaps pain and gain is the thing, and if it is, it will do quite a recovery job.
I can put your mind to rest and assure you Pain and (no) Gain is not the thing. If you want to see what a truly great director does with similar material, go watch The Wolf of Wall Street (although I have no doubt I'm preaching to the choir here!). -
- CommentTimeJul 11th 2014
Southall wrote
Further to my previous post, one of the most brilliant things about Bay's intelligence - and it's so sad that most people are just too stupid to realise it - is the way he uses the age of his actors to emphasise his real meaning. It's that old thing, Herr Willy Brand and everything. Some of the actors he casts are aged 22 - and some are aged 23. The truly brilliant thing here is that some of them are aged neither 22 nor 23. You can see it in all his films - just look.
And the women - especially ones with darker hair but just a hint of magnolia when they're in the sunlight - have you ever noticed that sometimes the camera is positioned very slightly to the left of centre? I wish you guys were clever enough to realise what that means. The astonishing way he can then shoot the same woman but from a different angle - sorry, I need to lie down.
What does Willy Brandt have to do with anything?
______________________________
There was Ghostbusters on TV on one channel in Germany tonight and Transformers 3 was on another. That told me everything about good and bad genre films.
It occurred to me that Transformers 3 and Man of Steel share major plot elements but I am to lazy to look up which film came first.
VolkerBach's music is vibrant and inspired. -
- CommentAuthorEdmund Meinerts
- CommentTimeJul 12th 2014 edited
Steven wrote
Yes, all well and good Pawel. But remember, we're talking about Michael Bay here. He's a fuckwit who makes fuckwitted films for other fuckwits.
In a lengthy discussion full of sophisticated rationales for distinctly unsophisticated filmmaking, this is probably the most beautifully succinct point of the lot. -
- CommentTimeJul 12th 2014 edited
Steven wrote
I can put your mind to rest and assure you Pain and (no) Gain is not the thing. If you want to see what a truly great director does with similar material, go watch The Wolf of Wall Street (although I have no doubt I'm preaching to the choir here!).
Unsurprisingly, I didn't care much for WOLF ON WALL STREET.
Anyways, I see the discussion has plummeted to ridicule and cheap shots again, and there's clearly no room for in-depth discussion, so let's just leave it at that. Plus, I'm too hung over to debate it further anyway.
MICHAEL BAY RULES! Screw everyone who thinks otherwise!I am extremely serious. -
- CommentTimeJul 12th 2014 edited
I doubt you have the virility to do that.Bach's music is vibrant and inspired. -
- CommentTimeJul 12th 2014
Ridicule is the best way to respond to ridiculous things. -
- CommentAuthorPawelStroinski
- CommentTimeJul 12th 2014
Steven wrote
Yes, all well and good Pawel. But remember, we're talking about Michael Bay here. He's a fuckwit who makes fuckwitted films for other fuckwits.
Well, I for example, could argue that The Rock isn't as much for fuckwits as the general Michael Bay film and that it actually makes several points, including making the villain ambiguous. Especially for a Jerry Bruckheimer film it goes into rather high intellectual level.
Also, I think that what we deal with here is something relevant for modern aesthetics. The truth is that arguing that Michael Bay has artistic merits going beyond spectacle is not exactly being the film studies equivalent of creationism. Far from it. There are several points you may not know about art criticism that are put to use. I am talking about academic art criticism, not just reviews.
But first I have to make a certain confession. I have been an academic for a few years and I effectively quit research a year ago. The issues at hand were quite big, from personal (an atrocious supervisor) to professional, so I'll speak only of the latter and I know that it will bring a lot of criticism from science fans, but sadly, having been a part of the community for quite a few years, there are things I have noticed just by sheer power of experience.
I think academic discourse is losing its relevance as a descriptive mean of discussing reality. It was largely discussed on this board why people can still be creationists if we know that evolution is the true way. The reason is very simple. Academics, scientists, so to speak, are so ingrained into their own community that with very notable exceptions (Bill Nye, deGrasse Tyson), they have no appeal whatsoever to ANYONE outside of the community. I'll go even further. You once said that we are irrational beings in a rational world. I kinda let it slide, even if it proved my argument about metaphysics, but that's not the point here.
The thing is that the world isn't "rational" in the way I we perceive the term rationalism. I would say that your statement could be even a way of admitting to preferring the Gaia theory, because rationalism is nothing else than "reason is the basic foundation of the world, both our perception of it and it's functioning". The truth is that reality is something very complex. Science, if we look at it through Thomas S. Kuhn's way, an approach that was criticized in certain points, but seems to be still accepted in terms of the philosophy of science, then we notice that science history is a series of events called paradigm shifts. I won't go into how the shift happens as a by-way, a side effect, so to speak, of trying to confirm the former paradigm. Why did I mention it. Because the paradigm shifts redefine some of the discoveries that were made before. There is the Newtonian definition of gravity, there is the Einsteinian definition and now quantum mechanical definition. Each of them is substantially more complex, thanks to the paradigm shift that made us notice how things are more complex than they were before.
But then there is a problem. By making the world "rational", aren't we applying OUR way of thinking to the way everything functions? Yes, it has its use. We can manipulate the physical realm to have things like cell phones, computers. I by no means reject scientific research whatsoever. I have issues with the way the research is discussed in what is basically a quite closed and elitist (yes, not elite, elitist) society. Our knowledge about the world has changed significantly throughout the history of the world. As someone with academic sensibilities and with academic experience, I acknowledge and appreciate that. But the mode and style of discussion has not since 4th century BC. The way we make and maintain (sorry for the word, I know it's wrong) our arguments is exactly the same, no matter the distinct minds and language or each particular human being that happens to be a researcher, as it was when Aristotle created the model of a thesis, be it his Physics, his Ethics or even Rhetorics and Poetics. State of research (what was written before me), methodology, aim, then arguing what you want to argue. We added conclusions to that, though probably partly because we don't exactly have everything Aristotle wrote and some texts (Poetics!) were retained unfinished.
So we can analyse whatever we want, but unless we prove the relevance and as long as academic research keeps to ye olde thesis structure, which may, but also may NOT be comprehended by the general public, the museum of Godly creation that is in America and I don't even want to remember where exactly it is and how it is called will be something INSANELY successful. We either keep academics to their own little world when they think how relevant they are and are able to talk to themselves only, and we speak in a descriptive world that maintains the arbitrary logical model dominating in what's called formal logic, or research will be a relevant part of this world only in form of short blurbs of discoveries written in papers or speeches by people who can actually talk about it in general public.
Because as it goes, in the end the regular Joe wants only to know is his expensive new phone will turn on when he puts his SIM card and battery in it, or not. No matter the physics behind it, because according to our general perception, what we don't perceive in sensually... does not exist.
Sorry for this rant, I am just considering returning to the academic world at least to finish what I started, and I have doubts if I should go with it.http://www.filmmusic.pl - Polish Film Music Review Website -
- CommentTimeJul 12th 2014
I'm sure Michael Bay would agree with you. -
- CommentAuthorPawelStroinski
- CommentTimeJul 12th 2014
The guy got a postgraduate. He spent a while in the community, even if in artistic terms, actuallyhttp://www.filmmusic.pl - Polish Film Music Review Website -
- CommentTimeJul 12th 2014 edited
Well, that was a somewhat weird tangent, Pawel. Was there any relevance to the discussion that I missed?I am extremely serious. -
- CommentTimeJul 12th 2014
Talking out of one's arse seems to be the only connection I can make to recent discussions in this thread. If only I was as smart as Michael Bay, I might be able to shed more light on it. -
- CommentTimeJul 12th 2014
The Force is an an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us and penetrates us; it binds the galaxy together.Bach's music is vibrant and inspired. -
- CommentTimeJul 12th 2014 edited
Steven wrote
Talking out of one's arse seems to be the only connection I can make to recent discussions in this thread. If only I was as smart as Michael Bay, I might be able to shed more light on it.
Don't be silly. When it's been on-target and constructive, it's actually a good discussion. Just because you personally don't like and/or connect to the language of scholarly film theory doesn't mean it's 'talking out of one's arse' or 'blatant bullshit' as you rather offensively said earlier. That categorization fits better on the cheap shots, ridicule and personal attacks. But yeah -- one also needs to stay focussed if there's supposed to be any meaningful exchange of opinions.I am extremely serious. -
- CommentTimeJul 12th 2014
Captain Future wrote
The Force is an an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us and penetrates us; it binds the galaxy together.
Ah, finally something that makes sense! -
- CommentTimeJul 12th 2014
Thor wrote
Steven wrote
Talking out of one's arse seems to be the only connection I can make to recent discussions in this thread. If only I was as smart as Michael Bay, I might be able to shed more light on it.
Don't be silly. When it's been on-target and constructive, it's actually a good discussion. Just because you personally don't like and/or connect to the language of scholarly film theory doesn't mean it's 'talking out of one's arse' or 'blatant bullshit' as you rather offensively said earlier. That categorization fits better on the cheap shots, ridicule and personal attacks.
Therein lies the appeal and the purpose, the way I see it. It's philosophical on a meta-level -- so self-conscious in its mise-en-scene that the moments stand out far beyond the classical forum narrative it operates within. Few members inside MainTitles manage to make these shifts as beautifully and overtly as I do. It's almost a parody on emotional intensity, as expressed through excessive means. That's the gravitas right there, although not perhaps the one you had in mind. -
- CommentTimeJul 12th 2014
I think I'm too serious for this place.I am extremely serious. -
- CommentTimeJul 12th 2014 edited
Steven wrote
Therein lies the appeal and the purpose, the way I see it. It's philosophical on a meta-level -- so self-conscious in its mise-en-scene that the moments stand out far beyond the classical forum narrative it operates within. Few members inside MainTitles manage to make these shifts as beautifully and overtly as I do. It's almost a parody on emotional intensity, as expressed through excessive means. That's the gravitas right there, although not perhaps the one you had in mind.
Answering carefully thought-out writings that happen to include advanced vocabulary, with meaningless and nonsensical dribble that also includes advanced vocabulary does not make you funny, it just makes you annoying. Notice how no one is laughing. I'll admit to not understand every point that Pawel and Thor have made, but I keep clicking on the thread because the discussion is quite interesting, as well as being that little bit more meaningful in that it's being held between two respected fellow film-music fans. So, people that actually have useful things to say, please carry on.I love you all. Never change. Well, unless you want to!