Topic: Directors Best Poll #8 - Michael Bay

[Jimmy]

Transformers (longest advert for a toy ever!)

As the cartoon show was... But every cartoon TV shows produced in the USA in the eighties was to sell toys.

[Antares]

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.

[Najemikon]

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. 

Ok, how about...



I just searched for that on YouTube, but I appreciate the first comment on its page... 

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! 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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.

[Antares]

Or this one, once again a la Bill Hickman...

[Najemikon]

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.

Or this one, once again a la Bill Hickman...

 

[hal9g]

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.

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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.

[Najemikon]

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.

[Antares]

Lean I think was one of the innovators to break that problem.

It was Kurosawa.

[Najemikon]

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.

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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 ... 

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.