Video, Cinema & TV => Movie analysis => Topic started by: Antares on April 06, 2011, 10:50:40 PM
Title: Directors Best Poll #8 - Michael Bay
Post by: Antares on April 06, 2011, 10:50:40 PM
Bad Boys The Rock Armageddon
Pearl Harbor Bad Boys II
He really should work for the Scotts Company, because his formulas make for great fertilizer.
Title: Re: Directors Best Poll #8 - Michael Bay
Post by: KinkyCyborg on April 06, 2011, 11:50:56 PM
Pearl Harbor The Rock Armageddon
Bad Boys
Bad Boy II
One obviously is not looking for deep meaning from a Michael Bay film but if you treat them for what they are... popcorn action flicks, then it can be translated into some success. Criterion felt strongly enough about him to issue 2 of his movies to the CC (Armageddon & The Rock). I actually like Pearl Harbor, despite the unneeded love triangle thingy thrown in there.
Haven't watched The Island or either of the Transformer movies which automatically have strikes against them with the inclusions of both Shia LaBeouf & Megan Fox. :voodoo:
Title: Re: Directors Best Poll #8 - Michael Bay
Post by: Mustrum_Ridcully on April 07, 2011, 12:40:02 AM
One obviously is not looking for deep meaning from a Michael Bay film but if you treat them for what they are... popcorn action flicks, then it can be translated into some success.
Agreed, and within this genre they might even be considered as "good". Compared to the great directors Bay's movies fall off a bit, but this is correct for for classics like "Die Hard" and "Lethal Weapon" too.
Title: Re: Directors Best Poll #8 - Michael Bay
Post by: Najemikon on April 07, 2011, 01:09:02 AM
For Pearl Harbour (because that's how it should be spelt! :laugh:) to appear at the top of any list is shameful. Just sayin'. :whistle:
I kind of understood why Criterion highlighted two of his films, because if Bay is good at anything, it's timing. Armageddon and The Rock were easy sellers with huge budgets and so epitomised the modern action tent-pole blockbuster film. What he is no good at is directing.
One obviously is not looking for deep meaning from a Michael Bay film but if you treat them for what they are... popcorn action flicks, then it can be translated into some success.
Agreed, and within this genre they might even be considered as "good". Compared to the great directors Bay's movies fall off a bit, but this is correct for for classics like "Die Hard" and "Lethal Weapon" too.
Wash your mouth out! :hysterical: John "Predator" McTiernan's Die Hard? Richard "I did the sequel to Superman" Donner's Lethal Weapon? The one written by Shane "Kiss Kiss Bang Bang" Black? Good Grief, man. Bay would hand over valuable body parts to be a tenth of how good they are.
Something I've never found the opportunity to explore properly on here apart from occasional reviews, is my love of the action film. And I don't mean a nerdy excuse to talk about Peckinpah or Friedkin, I mean the balls to the wall, shit getting 'blowed' up, kick ass macho bullshit with awesome dialogue written in crayon. The Expendables? Saw it the other night. Fan-bloody-tastic.
I genuinely love 'em, even when they are inherently rubbish. I'm like Butterman in Hot Fuzz! :laugh: It's how -before Matthias has a chance to mention it... again- I could give Eagle Eye four stars. Understand the audience it's aimed at, it makes sense...
To me, Bay only just scrapes into this category, because somehow he keeps getting money to make films like a soufle. You can't ignore them, they are big, they are fun, but there's nothing to them and when you dig a little, all evidence proves he is useless. The editing in The Rock is just woeful, for instance. He's like a child, bumbling in the dark, while James Cameron, Kathryn Bigelow, Paul Greengrass and even Stallone, are just doing it properly. They understand what they are doing.
All Bay can do is point a camera at stuff other people have paid for and sometimes, he can't even get that much right. He's kind of making films for himself and forgetting to make them comprehensible.
But, "like a child" is a perfect description, because I think by some considerable margin his best film is Transformers, because he directed it in the same way a kid would play with the toys: one in each hand and bash 'em together until bits fall off, while making explosion noises with his mouth. Perfect. Just what it needed and I have no problem recommending it to anyone who wants to have some great fun.
If there is one thing Bay is worse at than directing, it's understanding how to make a sequel. The only action, supposedly switch-your-brain-off genre films of this kind I have ever come close to being offended by (you know, not just "stop watching, this is so bad it hurts") are Bad Boys... 2 and Transformers... 2. They are horrendously bad and downright insulting. How he strayed so far from even his simple opening films in those genres, I didn't think was feasible! He barely has a grasp of his own abilities.
The real talent behind Bay is Bruckheimer and his best work is with Tony Scott. Crimson Tide, Enemy of the State, etc, are easily films that Bayhem could have done, but they are actually good because someone who knows which end of a camera does what directed them instead.
Title: Re: Directors Best Poll #8 - Michael Bay
Post by: Mustrum_Ridcully on April 07, 2011, 01:48:05 AM
Probably you got me wrong, I too love this classic No-Brain Action Genre where things blow up just because they are there and look like they could. Exactly for this reason I found "The Expendables" to be extremely average (Hell, the visual effects in the airplane scenes looked like shot in the "Blue-Box" from the early Eighties) and looooved "RED". And exactly for this reason I love some of the Bay flicks too (to be precise: 3: Bad Boys / The Rock / The Island). I don't expect a plausible plot or extraordinary directing in an action-flick. A fast, dirty, honestly entertaining flick completely suffices to make me happy.
Quote
I could give Eagle Eye four stars. Understand the audience it's aimed at, it makes sense...
Yupp, and understanding the audience Bay is aiming at would actually mean that you'd have to award 5 stars to all of them (except "Transformers", maybe). Because, whether you like this cineastic junk-food or not, Bay's audiences, which actually change from movie to movie do love his work. The only problem he might have is that he has a different target group for almost every "movie", and because of this almost no fanbase that goes into a movie because he made it. I for one would prefer to have my right arm cut off before watching any of "The Transformers" ... but coming to think of it, this is correct for most of the Woody Allen stuff too.
EDIT: Or in other words: Bay may not know which end of the camera to point in which direction (Which BTW he doesn't have to, cause that's what the DoP is for), but he has a great feeling for blockbusting scripts, timing and customer's needs. The rest is like comparing McDonald's to Paul Bocuse. Of course Bocuse is the better cook, but still McDonald's is selling more meals per hour than Bocuse will in his whole lifetime.
Title: Re: Directors Best Poll #8 - Michael Bay
Post by: goodguy on April 07, 2011, 03:26:34 AM
The Expendables? Saw it the other night. Fan-bloody-tastic.
I genuinely love 'em, even when they are inherently rubbish. I'm like Butterman in Hot Fuzz! :laugh: It's how -before Matthias has a chance to mention it... again- I could give Eagle Eye four stars. Understand the audience it's aimed at, it makes sense...
I do like action films every now and then, just not the crappy ones like Eagle Eye. Haven't seen The Expendables and I suspect it falls into that rubbish category, but of last year's offerings, I greatly enjoyed RED and Salt.
Title: Re: Directors Best Poll #8 - Michael Bay
Post by: DJ Doena on April 07, 2011, 04:25:02 AM
I like Michael Bay. I know exactly what I'm going to get when watching one of his movies and when I decide to watch it I'm in the mood for exactly that kind.
"That is no salesman. That is your daddy." The characters are often caricatures but they are still very lovable as they are often caught in situations they weren't really trained for and just make it up as they go along.
"I said you should pull the lever!" - "This IS the lever!!!"
I just have fun when watching Armageddon
Title: Re: Directors Best Poll #8 - Michael Bay
Post by: m.cellophane on April 07, 2011, 04:28:07 AM
Pearl Harbor The Rock Armageddon
Title: Re: Directors Best Poll #8 - Michael Bay
Post by: Achim on April 07, 2011, 06:57:23 AM
What an awkward poll :laugh:. I agree with those comments, that you have to see his films in context of the target audience. Only films of his I really enjoyed was Transfomers (I actually upgraded from DVD to Blu-ray :-[); in a toy-smashing kind-of way as decribed by Jon :laugh:.
Transformers
The Rock
The Island
Armageddon Bad Boys II Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
Title: Re: Directors Best Poll #8 - Michael Bay
Post by: Najemikon on April 07, 2011, 08:35:42 AM
I like Michael Bay. I know exactly what I'm going to get when watching one of his movies and when I decide to watch it I'm in the mood for exactly that kind.
"That is no salesman. That is your daddy." The characters are often caricatures but they are still very lovable as they are often caught in situations they weren't really trained for and just make it up as they go along.
"I said you should pull the lever!" - "This IS the lever!!!"
I just have fun when watching Armageddon
But all of that, you'd still have got if Tony Scott had turned up! :D What you just described is typical of Bruckheimer, surely.
Probably you got me wrong, I too love this classic No-Brain Action Genre where things blow up just because they are there and look like they could. Exactly for this reason I found "The Expendables" to be extremely average (Hell, the visual effects in the airplane scenes looked like shot in the "Blue-Box" from the early Eighties) and looooved "RED". And exactly for this reason I love some of the Bay flicks too (to be precise: 3: Bad Boys / The Rock / The Island). I don't expect a plausible plot or extraordinary directing in an action-flick. A fast, dirty, honestly entertaining flick completely suffices to make me happy.
Quote
I could give Eagle Eye four stars. Understand the audience it's aimed at, it makes sense...
Yupp, and understanding the audience Bay is aiming at would actually mean that you'd have to award 5 stars to all of them (except "Transformers", maybe). Because, whether you like this cineastic junk-food or not, Bay's audiences, which actually change from movie to movie do love his work. The only problem he might have is that he has a different target group for almost every "movie", and because of this almost no fanbase that goes into a movie because he made it. I for one would prefer to have my right arm cut off before watching any of "The Transformers" ... but coming to think of it, this is correct for most of the Woody Allen stuff too.
EDIT: Or in other words: Bay may not know which end of the camera to point in which direction (Which BTW he doesn't have to, cause that's what the DoP is for), but he has a great feeling for blockbusting scripts, timing and customer's needs. The rest is like comparing McDonald's to Paul Bocuse. Of course Bocuse is the better cook, but still McDonald's is selling more meals per hour than Bocuse will in his whole lifetime.
Well, I was being factitious, but therein lies the point. Take out the script, the characters, the stunt work and what you are left with is Bay's contribution. And what I normally find is that he is distracting rather than directing! Tony Scott has a much stronger sense of style that has evolved into something quite decent.
And The Expendables is still better directed. The effects lack something because it was low budget, but importantly, Stallone knows when to keep his mouth shut.
"There's no action without danger", Howard Hawks once said and I often think of that when a director like Bay can't keep the f***ing camera still for a second!
The Expendables? Saw it the other night. Fan-bloody-tastic.
I genuinely love 'em, even when they are inherently rubbish. I'm like Butterman in Hot Fuzz! :laugh: It's how -before Matthias has a chance to mention it... again- I could give Eagle Eye four stars. Understand the audience it's aimed at, it makes sense...
I do like action films every now and then, just not the crappy ones like Eagle Eye. Haven't seen The Expendables and I suspect it falls into that rubbish category, but of last year's offerings, I greatly enjoyed RED and Salt.
Simply because it's more of a thriller, Eagle Eye edges The Expendables because it has at least distinct stages to its script and has to work harder. The Expendables is little more than astonishing cartoon violence with very loud bangs! I enjoyed it more than Eagle Eye, but it's a steady three stars...
Title: Re: Directors Best Poll #8 - Michael Bay
Post by: goodguy on April 07, 2011, 09:00:42 AM
But all of that, you'd still have got if Tony Scott had turned up! :D
But in Tony Scott's case you can't be sure. He might surprise you with something like Domino - which I absolutely loved, btw. (and I swear I don't try just to be different :)).
Title: Re: Directors Best Poll #8 - Michael Bay
Post by: Najemikon on April 07, 2011, 09:55:39 AM
But all of that, you'd still have got if Tony Scott had turned up! :D
But in Tony Scott's case you can't be sure. He might surprise you with something like Domino - which I absolutely loved, btw. (and I swear I don't try just to be different :)).
That's exactly what I mean. Scott can find a way to enhance the material. Even crap like the Pelham 123 remake has some style. Bay can't do that.
Title: Re: Directors Best Poll #8 - Michael Bay
Post by: Mustrum_Ridcully on April 07, 2011, 10:19:21 AM
That's exactly what I mean. Scott can find a way to enhance the material. Even crap like the Pelham 123 remake has some style. Bay can't do that.
Not quite. Correct would have been: Bay doesn't have to do that. Because first of all Bay wouldn't have made such a "crap like the Pelham 123 remake". Don't get me wrong, I like most of Tony Scott's work, even though quite often you can see the influence of the big brother. But he has an astonishing record of barely watchable or unwatchable flicks too. Just take the last three as examples (Déjà Vu, Pelham 123, Unstoppable), sorry, but this junk is in no way better than any Bay flick.
Quote
Take out the script, the characters, the stunt work and what you are left with is Bay's contribution.
And to remain within my cooking example: take out the meat, the salad, the spices, the bread and the potatoes and what you are left with are the contributions of Bocuse and McDonald's. It's basically the same: Hot Air.
Now really Jon, you can't tear apart a piece of work and say what's left is the actual work. The ingredients and their combination is exactly what defines the product. In some very lucky cases you'll be able to recognize the handwriting of the producer, but this will only be correct for handcrafted products. For mass-productions (and this is what Bay, Scott and Emmerich are doing nowadays) this is not even wanted. In this regard Bay is actually doing the "better" job. The job of a director is it to combine all elements of the production in a way that in the end (when all is said and done) you have a product. I know that there are many people that celebrate this as arts, but mainly it's accounting.
Title: Re: Directors Best Poll #8 - Michael Bay
Post by: Najemikon on April 07, 2011, 07:51:32 PM
Hold on, what are we talking about here? "High-octane" action movies are largely just throw everything at the screen, blow it all up and have fun. No real art involved, no artists required, you're quite right. But please don't tell me you consider Akira Kurosawa an accountant! He and many other directors responsible for milestones in action as well as definitive entries, are absolutely artists.
I wouldn't consider Tony Scott an artist (although he does have more of signature style now than he ever did before) and Michael Bay certainly isn't either. How well a film is made is not directly reflective on how enjoyable it is and there really is nothing quite like Armageddon! All I'm saying is that Bay does more that disappoints me than any other director, which leads me to believe he doesn't understand what the hell he is doing.
Take this famous scene from The Rock:
Fairly exciting stuff! But an absolute mess. Hardly any shots over a second and when they are, he's just waving the bloody camera around. The shots of the guy on the radio are awful. It's like Bay was on set yelling, "Guys! I just found a zooooom button! It's awesome!". Just because it's high-octane action didn't mean he couldn't have aspired to:
All it takes is slightly longer shots and no need to zoomy-zoomy-zoom-zoomity-zoom-zoom-PAN! ::)
BTW, Tony Scott did Top Gun. Cheesy as hell, but the aerial stuff at least is better than anything Bay could even think of doing! :tease: In all seriousness though, Unstoppable? Junk? Really? I liked it. It was almost a perfect action film because it had no plot and no villain, just one huge set-piece. If they'd managed to keep out the ridiculous back stories that almost made me throw up and the predictable, out of place job insecurity, it would have been stunning.
Title: Re: Directors Best Poll #8 - Michael Bay
Post by: snowcat on April 07, 2011, 08:52:10 PM
Bad Boys 2
Bad Boys
Transformers (longest advert for a toy ever!)
Title: Re: Directors Best Poll #8 - Michael Bay
Post by: Jimmy on April 07, 2011, 08:59:05 PM
As the cartoon show was... But every cartoon TV shows produced in the USA in the eighties was to sell toys.
Title: Re: Directors Best Poll #8 - Michael Bay
Post by: Antares on April 07, 2011, 09:01:08 PM
While I agree with your sentiments on Bay, using that segment of The French Connection is a little misleading in regards to your argument. A good portion of the segment was filmed, to be precise, the POV from the front of the car racing beneath the El line, was done illegally on the streets on New York by Bill Hickman with Friedkin sitting in the passenger seat. Friedkin wanted to make the chase more exciting than the one Hickman had done for Bulitt and asked Hickman how to do it. Hickman replied, "strap a camera on the front of the car and get in". What you are seeing in those POV shots was Hickman, driving like a lunatic for real on the busy streets of a normal day in New York. After finishing the ride, Friedkin just filmed all the other shots in the segment and blended them in with that one. There is no way you could ever get that realism today by doing the same thing, the lawsuits the studio would incur would bankrupt them.
Title: Re: Directors Best Poll #8 - Michael Bay
Post by: Najemikon on April 07, 2011, 09:54:54 PM
True and to be fair to Michael Bay and Jerry Bruckheimer, they would want much more destruction just because that's the kind of film they were making, but it was a purely technical demonstration to prove the opposite. That it was possible to show one of the cars travelling for more than a metre before cutting. :laugh:
Ok, how about...
I just searched for that on YouTube, but I appreciate the first comment on its page... :whistle:
Anyway, it's much more staged and edited, but still has longer shots of cars actually being driven. I always like the pedigree of these films. Frankenheimer directs Grand Prix, developing techniques for filming car chases that you could argue are picked up by The French Connection. Frankenheimer then directs the sequel and doesn't include a car chase, which must have confused a few critics at the time, but eventually gives us another defining example in Ronin, the euro thriller that gave the Bourne films a good start, which of course, always feature bloody brilliant car chases! :training:
Title: Re: Directors Best Poll #8 - Michael Bay
Post by: Mustrum_Ridcully on April 08, 2011, 12:35:06 AM
Fairly exciting stuff! But an absolute mess. Hardly any shots over a second and when they are, he's just waving the bloody camera around. The shots of the guy on the radio are awful. It's like Bay was on set yelling, "Guys! I just found a zooooom button! It's awesome!".
But we are still talking about the "Director" aren't we, not about the "Director of Photography", who AFAIK is the guy responsible for zoom-abuse. The only fault that Bay might have made here was that he accepted this shots and didn't yell for a second go. It might have been a question of budget though, you can only crash a limited number of Ferraris.
And that's where the accounting starts, take what you have and try to make the best out of it.
Of course there are a lot artists among the Directors, it's just that you usually don't find them directing a streamlined high-budget mainstream production. With those productions the studios are so afraid of a flop (and the inherent loss of 100 million $$) that the so-called "freedom of the artist" is non-existent. For those job you need guys like Bay, not artists, but accountants, always one eye on the budget the other one on the schedule -> No eyes left for checking the correct usage of the zoom. Those flicks are by far to expensive for artists, and we've all seen what happens if the studios are giving a big budget production to a promising artist: they castrate the creativity out of him.
I don't want to make Bay any better than he is, but obviously he's getting the money to direct movies, and he gets a lot of it. This might have a simple reason (Bad Boys: Budget 10 mio$, BoxOffice (world) 140 mio$; The Rock: Budget 70 mio, BoxOffice (world) 325 mio; Transformers II: Budget 200 mio$, BoxOffice (world) 825 mio$): his work is earning money. So what he's doing might be the worst junk ever (and it probably is), but you really can't argue with success.
And to once more come up with my cooking example: Of course McDonalds could easily change the concept to Haute Cuisine, just to please the critics, but why should they? They are making tons of money with their junk, every day, world wide. And of course there are true artists among the cooks, but by far the most cooks are earning their money in mainstream restaurants and company canteens.
EDIT: BTW: The DoP that messed up the car chase was John Schwartzman and this was his first fast paced action movie.
Title: Re: Directors Best Poll #8 - Michael Bay
Post by: Antares on April 08, 2011, 01:00:48 AM
Or this one, once again a la Bill Hickman...
Title: Re: Directors Best Poll #8 - Michael Bay
Post by: Najemikon on April 08, 2011, 01:13:04 AM
But we are still talking about the "Director" aren't we, not about the "Director of Photography", who AFAIK is the guy responsible for zoom-abuse. The only fault that Bay might have made here was that he accepted this shots and didn't yell for a second go. It might have been a question of budget though, you can only crash a limited number of Ferraris.
And that's where the accounting starts, take what you have and try to make the best out of it.
Ooh, no! A DoP is responsible, like any photographer, for the technicalities of what is required from the equipment to achieve what the Director has asked for. DoP's are probably the most artistic of anyone on a set, because they are working with the quality of the image and understand the intricacies of focal lengths and depths of field, etc.
If Michael Bay did not specifically ask for zooming and Michael Bay got zooming, then Michael Bay should have fired someone. He wanted it. Definitely. I was being silly before, characterising how I think of Bay's approach, but in truth, there's no way in hell he didn't plan it. Certainly, he wouldn't have actually operated the thing, probably, but he'll have directed whoever did. He is the only one who really knows what the film looks like in his head and he needs everyone to match up. Credit where it's due, there are better directors, but the fact he is there at all should be applauded, because what he is doing is bloody hard.
I just happened to have watched a making of documentary for The Social Network. Now David Fincher is known for being precise, but bloody hell. He was even correcting his continuity script lady on the way an actors hand moved. That's her job, but he was so on the ball, he was doing it as well.
Of course there are a lot artists among the Directors, it's just that you usually don't find them directing a streamlined high-budget mainstream production. With those productions the studios are so afraid of a flop (and the inherent loss of 100 million $$) that the so-called "freedom of the artist" is non-existent. For those job you need guys like Bay, not artists, but accountants, always one eye on the budget the other one on the schedule -> No eyes left for checking the correct usage of the zoom. Those flicks are by far to expensive for artists, and we've all seen what happens if the studios are giving a big budget production to a promising artist: they castrate the creativity out of him.
I don't want to make Bay any better than he is, but obviously he's getting the money to direct movies, and he gets a lot of it. This might have a simple reason (Bad Boys: Budget 10 mio$, BoxOffice (world) 140 mio$; The Rock: Budget 70 mio, BoxOffice (world) 325 mio; Transformers II: Budget 200 mio$, BoxOffice (world) 825 mio$): his work is earning money. So what he's doing might be the worst junk ever (and it probably is), but you really can't argue with success.
And to once more come up with my cooking example: Of course McDonalds could easily change the concept to Haute Cuisine, just to please the critics, but why should they? They are making tons of money with their junk, every day, world wide.
Oh, I don't deny he is successful. And I stress again I own and enjoy watching a couple of his films. But these threads are about putting directors into context. His best film? It's a moot point because he is exactly what you describe. The junk food vendor.
However, I find it a little sad you think this is the norm. I don't think Michael Bay ever went on the Transformers set thinking, "fuck it, let's just get their cash". A film may be cynical in design, but never in execution, if the result worked on any level. Because there are so many people involved and the director does have to be in full control, they have to want it, heart and soul. When they don't, it's on the screen for all to see.
Michael Bay is at least enthusiastic! I can't take that from him.
To return to what you said: "With those productions the studios are so afraid of a flop (and the inherent loss of 100 million $$) that the so-called "freedom of the artist" is non-existent. For those job you need guys like Bay, not artists, but accountants, always one eye on the budget the other one on the schedule"
Again, so cynical! The great story of many movies, even the biggest most expensive ones, are the battles between the studios and the artists, on set. The goal is that creative freedom, where they prove themselves on the junk food to the point the studio says, "Ok, here's a budget. We trust you."
If Christopher Nolan can do it, why not Michael Bay? If James Cameron can, why not Bay? Robert Zemeckis managed it too, although he's probably shit his bed with the failure of his latest film screwing up his dream Yellow Submarine project, but he still proves, it can be done.
Why not Michael Bay? He isn't talented enough. So we'll still enjoy his enthusiastic big budget junk food, while he gets continually leap frogged.
Title: Re: Directors Best Poll #8 - Michael Bay
Post by: hal9g on April 08, 2011, 04:35:21 AM
I have to agree with Jon about the director being totally in control of what the DOP is doing. Hitchcock is a good example. When they talk about the unique way his films are photographed, especially films like Vertigo, credit is given to Hitchcock, not the DOP, as it should be. I find it hard to believe for a minute, that the DOP would use 'zoom' this way without explicit instructions from the Director.
Title: Re: Directors Best Poll #8 - Michael Bay
Post by: Mustrum_Ridcully on April 08, 2011, 10:27:59 AM
Why not Michael Bay? He isn't talented enough. So we'll still enjoy his enthusiastic big budget junk food, while he gets continually leap frogged.
We can agree on that. Even though I still say that he's getting his jobs exactly because and not in spite of his lack of artistic talent.
Regarding my cynism: It's well founded. With the beginning Eighties the studios started to meddle more and more in the production process so that nowadays young talented, enthusiastic artists seem to lose their talents in the struggle with the studios. A film like "Lawrence of Arabia" wouldn't be made today. They'd do a remake because it already was successful, but if it wasn't already existing and David Lean came up with the idea today, he wouldn't get this on any screen until he promises to make it look like "Inception". Nowadays even the actors have to start their own production companies if they want to appear in a movie that has some artistic value. That's why movies like "Up in the Air", "The Informant" or "The Good German" exist. Outside the small world of movie lovers (What's the plural of cineast?), those weren't even noticed, except probably for the appearances of Clooney, Damon and Maguire.
Title: Re: Directors Best Poll #8 - Michael Bay
Post by: Najemikon on April 08, 2011, 07:02:08 PM
Regarding my cynism: It's well founded. With the beginning Eighties the studios started to meddle more and more in the production process so that nowadays young talented, enthusiastic artists seem to lose their talents in the struggle with the studios. A film like "Lawrence of Arabia" wouldn't be made today. They'd do a remake because it already was successful, but if it wasn't already existing and David Lean came up with the idea today, he wouldn't get this on any screen until he promises to make it look like "Inception". Nowadays even the actors have to start their own production companies if they want to appear in a movie that has some artistic value. That's why movies like "Up in the Air", "The Informant" or "The Good German" exist. Outside the small world of movie lovers (What's the plural of cineast?), those weren't even noticed, except probably for the appearances of Clooney, Damon and Maguire.
That's not an 80s thing. That's been happening since cinema studios started. Someone talented would create a new way of doing film, the studio would run with it, it would influence everyone else and prove so successful, the producers refuse to accept a change until someone sneaks change by them, it proves to be a mega-hit and away the cycle starts again. Throw into the mix, different countries respond to each others innovations by doing the opposite, which feeds back into Hollywood, who get another shift change. It's how the magic happens in mainstream cinema.
You mention Lawrence of Arabia, but in fact, David Lean was simply one of the directors who prospered when the studios essentially forced the change into widescreen formats and colour to defeat the threat from TV. Many other directors suffered, because they had been exploring the use of depth and shade (see Film Noir examples in the 40s) and wider scope lenses took a long time to catch up. That's why a lot of early widescreen releases had a "washing line" shot of their cast. Every one lined up in a row, because they'd lost the ability to place people in a room without losing focus. Lean I think was one of the innovators to break that problem.
Think of how Orson Welles had to trick the studio into getting Citizen Kane made how he wanted. He would suffer the rest of his career as producers suffocated his efforts. And Casablanca was nothing but a production picture trying to capitalise on a previous film that had a country for a title!
Or Hitchcock, compelled to use 3D in Dial M for Murder when he didn't want to (the format was dead by the time it was released anyway, making for an odd film).
The studio system died off in the 60s and the 70s were full of innovation, which might be why you think of the 80s because Jaws, Star Wars and special effects were proving to be a such a massive success, it must have seemed like nothing but a potential blockbuster would get any support. However, even Coppola had trouble with The Godfather and had to fight the studio throughout because he wanted to use Italian-American actors and Marlon Brando was considered too risky.
So don't be too cynical because cinema wouldn't be as wonderfully diverse as it is without these battles. Hollywood will always be the centre and the independents and world cinema will always chip at the edges, shaping it into something occasionally astonishing.
Title: Re: Directors Best Poll #8 - Michael Bay
Post by: Antares on April 08, 2011, 07:30:04 PM
Lean I think was one of the innovators to break that problem.
It was Kurosawa.
Doh! I was only reading about that again the other day as well. :-[ I was focusing too much on Lean because Lawrence was listed as an example. Certainly I would give him credit for using the depth of the image better than anyone. Not only the famously over-quoted shot at the well, but the finale of The Bridge on the River Kwai.
EDIT: BTW: The DoP that messed up the car chase was John Schwartzman and this was his first fast paced action movie.
Only just noticed this edit. He really didn't mess up and you have to remember, the "fast pace" comes from the editing. They will have had dozens of available takes to choose from, all probably about two minutes long and no way could Mr Schwartzman be blamed for the half second shots they used.
Title: Re: Directors Best Poll #8 - Michael Bay
Post by: Mustrum_Ridcully on April 09, 2011, 03:59:29 PM
They will have had dozens of available takes to choose from, all probably about two minutes long and no way could Mr Schwartzman be blamed for the half second shots they used.
That depends on the material that Schwartzman delivered. If from this two-minute cuts only half a second was useable he can be blamed ... :tease:
But I don't know who's to blame, so if in doubt (and that's where I agree with you) blame it on the Director, he's the one responsible after all.