What do you think of Silent Films?

[AudioPostExpert]

If you watch a film on DVD or any streaming service, then it is not a film?

By definition it would not be a theatrical film. Let me turn the question around, is watching a DVD or streaming service the same as the theatrical experience?

But your definition automatically excludes films made around 1895 - 1935, several of which are great films!

With the possible exception of some extremely early screenings, all the films of the silent era were screened with sound (though not sync sound) as has been mentioned. When silent films are screened or broadcast today, they are always done so with some sort of sound (usually at least music), as was the intention when they were made. I repeat that a film with no sound at all would not get distributed/screened in a cinema today and therefore by definition would not be a theatrical film.

Also, define "great", very few people would find a film without any sound to be "great" because it would not engage them.

Okay, maybe I do appreciate it [sound] but certainly not as much as you or other experts.

Obviously, I can appreciate the skill and artistry of the process/creation of sound, it's design and how it has been employed to manipulate the audience, which others without the training/experience cannot. However, as someone involved in the filmmaking process, I don't want want the audience to be aware of the work I have done, I want them to be engaged in the story of the film itself, not the process by which it was made or how we are trying to manipulate them. If I do my job well, the audience appreciates my work exactly as much as I want them to, which the vast majority of the time is not at all, because I don't want them to be consciously aware that I'm trying to manipulate them!

A filmmaker doesn't need to know everything, but know the basics of everything.

I would say that a filmmaker needs to know ALL the crafts well enough to be able to employ them in the most effective way to tell the story. By definition, a Director must be able to "direct" the crafts-people employed on the film!

Ah I see, but I still can't agree with this because no I don't think that Yasujiro Ozu, Andrei Tarkovsky, Ingmar Bergman, and most arthouse directors make films with a lot of "entertainment value" precisely because they aren't primarily trying to entertain the audience.

Well I can see that they also are part of film art, just not a very good one (in the case of Bay) ... I'm not saying it isn't part of film art at all, I just don't think it is good film art.

I disagree. The audience they are trying to entertain is different from the audience Michael Bay is trying to entertain and therefore what the audience is entertained by is different. Sometimes I go to the cinema and I'm looking for some relatively mindless escapism, other times I'm looking for something more intellectually stimulating. Michael Bay might be ideal if I'm in the mood for the former but not for the latter, Tarkovski or Bergman would be better for the latter but not so much for the former. Who is better, Bay or Bergman? What they both create is extremely difficult and few can do it well. Just because you personally are not entertained by escapist films does not mean that they don't require great skill and artistry.

As I said, nearly all of the great arthouse films are not watched for their "entertainment value."

Except in the case of a student who needs (or has been instructed) to study a great arthouse film, a critic or someone else whose work requires them to analyse an arthouse film, everyone who watches a film (arthouse or not) does so for the entertainment value. What constitutes "entertainment value" of course varies between individuals and demographic groups.

I just don't think that somehow all silent films are inferior, the way that you believe. For me that is the most troublesome part of your posts.

Patently, silent film is inferior. Let me ask this question; what is it that you think you can do with a silent film that you can't do with a talkie? The fact is that relatively few cinephiles, critics and filmmakers would say (in honesty) that their favourite film is a silent film, let alone the wider public.

I don't think that Abbas Kiarostami, Jia Zhangke, Apichatpong Weerasethakul, Lisandro Alonso, Tsai Ming-liang, and many others are popular filmmakers, yet they seem to get their work out there and make many films. If you think that this is a "significant degree of popularity and financial return" then I agree 100% with you.

By definition, the directors you have mentioned are popular. If they weren't you probably would never have heard of them, their films would never be screened, they would never attract the funds to make more films or be anything other than hobbyist filmmakers. Obviously their target demographic is different to the demographic Michael Bay is aiming at but nevertheless, they have to provide enough "entertainment value" for their demographic in order to be popular within that demographic.

G

 

[Modern Day Myth Prod. LLC]

H44, I recommend you try something new and look for old radio show classics to learn how to create stories with sound alone with no visuals to see how your imagination can paint the pictures for you.

I recommend such classics as Orsen Wells War Of The Worlds, The Shadow, and Mystery Theater.

It will open up a whole new world to you.

 

[MiniJamesW]

By definition it would not be a theatrical film. Let me turn the question around, is watching a DVD or streaming service the same as the theatrical experience?

I would argue that it is still a film but not a theatrical experience of a film. No watching a DVD or streaming service is not the same as the theatrical experience but it is an approximation of that experience, these approximations are of varying quality of course. However, these approximations are still forms of film viewing as the viewer is watching a film. I am defining film, not the theatrical experience of film.

With the possible exception of some extremely early screenings, all the films of the silent era were screened with sound (though not sync sound) as has been mentioned. When silent films are screened or broadcast today, they are always done so with some sort of sound (usually at least music), as was the intention when they were made. I repeat that a film with no sound at all would not get distributed/screened in a cinema today and therefore by definition would not be a theatrical film.

I can agree with this for the most part but it is an argument made based on generalizations of silent film viewing. Your first sentence is absolutely true. However, I would argue that even watching silent films today with music on is a not watching the film as the intention when they were made as they are not the original scores. For me, watching these films with the new soundtracks or without a soundtrack at all are two equally valid ways of viewing these films. I personally prefer to watch silent films with soundtracks, however if a soundtrack is not available at all (and this is the case with most foreign silent films and many American silent films by the way) or with soundtracks that are inappropriate/distracting then I accept watching them silently. Since you are arguing about a theatrical film then I agree. If you argue about film in general I would only ask that you say "with the intention of being viewed with moving picture and sound." Because unfortunately (and I really mean this) most silent film scores are lost and most have not even had new scores composed and recorded.

Also, define "great", very few people would find a film without any sound to be "great" because it would not engage them.

I mentioned specific examples of great completely silent films such as Yasujiro Ozu's A Story Of Floating Weeds. This film had a newly recorded score some years ago but I saw it without a soundtrack (because my copy didn't have one) and it was still an extremely moving experience to me. Also many who are enthusiasts or scholars of silent films have to get used to viewing these films without soundtracks at all because aside from the most popular silent films (especially American ones) there are no new scores recorded for these films! Of course, to you this is all meaningless because you believe that silent films are inherently inferior to sound films

Obviously, I can appreciate the skill and artistry of the process/creation of sound, it's design and how it has been employed to manipulate the audience, which others without the training/experience cannot. However, as someone involved in the filmmaking process, I don't want want the audience to be aware of the work I have done, I want them to be engaged in the story of the film itself, not the process by which it was made or how we are trying to manipulate them. If I do my job well, the audience appreciates my work exactly as much as I want them to, which the vast majority of the time is not at all, because I don't want them to be consciously aware that I'm trying to manipulate them!

I can agree with this pretty much all of it. Although I do prefer to be moved by the sound element at times as well, while not being distracted by the story. I've always thought that having good storytelling along with formal qualities that are masterful in the way they touch the audience in and of themselves should be the ideal. Although as I said, I don't believe that storytelling is or should be all that cinema is (although I do accept and understand that it is pretty much the only part of cinema most audiences appreciate).

I would say that a filmmaker needs to know ALL the crafts well enough to be able to employ them in the most effective way to tell the story. By definition, a Director must be able to "direct" the crafts-people employed on the film!

Well when I said filmmaker, I didn't specify director. I don't think that a cinematographer needs to know a ton about sound or any other element. However, yes I agree with your views on the director. That is pretty much what I meant by the basics of each element (which basically means everything except for the real technical parts).

I disagree. The audience they are trying to entertain is different from the audience Michael Bay is trying to entertain and therefore what the audience is entertained by is different. Sometimes I go to the cinema and I'm looking for some relatively mindless escapism, other times I'm looking for something more intellectually stimulating. Michael Bay might be ideal if I'm in the mood for the former but not for the latter, Tarkovski or Bergman would be better for the latter but not so much for the former. Who is better, Bay or Bergman? What they both create is extremely difficult and few can do it well. Just because you personally are not entertained by escapist films does not mean that they don't require great skill and artistry.

Oh well I actually think we don't disagree at all, we just aren't using the same terms. I wouldn't use the word "entertain" when talking about Tarkovsky or Bergman, I would say "engage" instead. But yeah I completely agree with almost all of this. There are different types of "engaging" films for me.

However, I NEVER said that I am not entertained by escapist films. I am simply not entertained by escapist films made by Michael Bay (at least the ones I've seen so far). I love the films of Spielberg (one of my favorite directors), the original Star Wars trilogy, the best James Cameron films, the mainstream Hong Kong films of the 80's and 90's (even the ones I consider to be bad ones), and if you consider Old Hollywood to be 'escapist' then I'd say that's my second favorite period in all of cinematic history. I also enjoyed The Avengers and the recent Spider-Man movie. I'm not sure if John Hughes' films are escapist (certainly Ferris Bueller is?) but I love those and rank them very highly. I also adore Mary Poppins. I love the first and third Die Hard. I love the best Stallone films, the first Rocky and First Blood. I absolutely love Jackie Chan and Sammo Hung films, the martial arts film in general is one of my favorite genres. Maybe Woody Allen's early films are escapist, either way I love most of them! John Woo's Face/Off is an escapist film that I love a lot, even though I think it's not as good as his Hong Kong work which offers more than escapism for me. I may not be too accurate on what 'escapist' cinema is, but I certainly enjoy some films that are less thought provoking and would even place some of them on my top 100 favorite films. I just don't think that Bay reaches the heights of 'escapist' cinema, in fact he's one of the lowest points in all of cinema I have seen (and the reason is that he makes films that I consider to be horrible yet are not entertaining whatsoever, unlike several films that are undoubtedly worse than his). I'm sure Bay's films require a lot of effort, indeed they require more effort than nearly all of the art films I love or the films made in Old Hollywood, classical Japanese studios, and Hong Kong studios, but they don't achieve anything that touches me. Formally they are sloppy, artistically they are shallow, they also don't happen to entertain me as escapism, although I can appreciate a lot of the technical mastery involved, it isn't what I watch cinema for. Perhaps for you they qualify as great entertainment, and for many audiences. But for me personally, they do not. I respect anyone who loves his work, but I myself don't feel the same.

Except in the case of a student who needs (or has been instructed) to study a great arthouse film, a critic or someone else whose work requires them to analyse an arthouse film, everyone who watches a film (arthouse or not) does so for the entertainment value. What constitutes "entertainment value" of course varies between individuals and demographic groups.

I can agree with this, we were just using different terminology. If I use your way of classifying what entertainment constitutes (which is actually the way I used to do it, and now I think I'll use all the time, thanks!) then I agree with this 100%. I honestly think that no one should watch films to not be entertained except for critics and diehard cinephiles who choose such a lifestyle, like me haha. Although I find myself always WANTING to like every film I see so I feel disappointed in myself when I don't like a film that is treasured by audiences or critics, except for those few films that I hate with a passion because I think the filmmakers didn't even try!

Patently, silent film is inferior. Let me ask this question; what is it that you think you can do with a silent film that you can't do with a talkie? The fact is that relatively few cinephiles, critics and filmmakers would say (in honesty) that their favourite film is a silent film, let alone the wider public.

I can't agree with this at all. Once again I say that silent films are a different art form than sound films thus aren't directly comparable in terms of quality. Quite simply I think that silent films are more effective at telling stories using purely visuals than most sound films. Also I find that silent film is a much greater medium for physical comedy. Furthermore, silent film was much superior visually to the early sound films (yes this is irrelevant today, but it still stands when comparing early talkies to silent films). Silent film can also make for a more theatrical cinema (which some people think is worthless but the point still stands) as demonstrated with the benshi narrators of Japanese silent cinema.

That point doesn't matter at all because it's just as I said. Silent cinema is just like sound cinema in that it has masterpieces and great films, but it also has a lot of garbage. Most of what is celebrated today are the masterpieces and there are much fewer silent films than sound films for many reasons. First of all, the silent period of cinema is much shorter than the sound period. Second of all, many silent films are lost forever or incomplete (one of the greatest losses to Japanese cinema is the fact that all Sadao Yamanaka films except for his three sound films are lost forever).

Another reason why silent films are not as appreciated as sound films today is because audiences are less accustomed to it. Since audiences are raised on only viewing the moving image with synchronized sound, it is much more difficult for them to sit down and watch a silent film, let alone enjoy it. You may say that this is a sign of evolving tastes, sensibilities that are SUPERIOR to past sensibilities. I don't, I view it as a sign of change. People have always been narrow-minded, and always will be, but what they are narrow-minded about always changes in my opinion. When talkies came out, people were narrow-minded about silent films. When color became absolutely dominant, people became narrow-minded about black & white films. I don't think that this attribute of human behavior should be celebrated or embraced. I think people should try to break down their irrelevant and unnecessary biases against anything. In cinema, these unnecessary biases today are usually against silent films, black & white films, certain genres (especially against musicals and Westerns; especially American Westerns), against arthouse films, and against foreign films. I've had to face these biases myself and since I realized that they were really unfounded and contributed to my own ignorance as a film viewer I personally decided to challenge myself. I first started watching foreign films, then black & white films, then silent films, then arthouse films, then I re-evaluated genres that I initially dismissed such as the Action genre, the Musical, and the Western. I also had a hard time viewing films with more graphic content, I am still disturbed by a lot of these films but I make a point of viewing some of them because I know there are some treasures that having very graphic content. Probably the most difficult unnecessary bias I had is one that is more easily understandable but still unacceptable to me, and it was to watch a silent film that had no soundtrack in complete silence. I still recognize that I have some biases against contemporary Hollywood but I've been working on that as well. I'll always think that dismissing an entire large part of cinematic history or the cinematic landscape is not a very good way to view cinema, but unfortunately many theoretical critics (and some formalist ones) as well as cinephiles and ESPECIALLY wide audiences arbitrarily decide that some cinema is not worth viewing. I accept this, but I certainly don't approve of this way of viewing cinema. You can believe what you will about silent cinema, but I think it speaks more about yourself (your bias, which I think is partly because of the fact that you rightfully, hate how many filmmakers and critics only value the visual element of the film) than the actual films you are dismissing.

By definition, the directors you have mentioned are popular. If they weren't you probably would never have heard of them, their films would never be screened, they would never attract the funds to make more films or be anything other than hobbyist filmmakers. Obviously their target demographic is different to the demographic Michael Bay is aiming at but nevertheless, they have to provide enough "entertainment value" for their demographic in order to be popular within that demographic.

As I said, if you would classify these filmmakers as popular directors then I absolutely agree with you. I agree with all of the above except that I'd probably use a different word than popular because these films are not extremely well-known nor do their films make a lot of money. But yes, to a degree they are popular, within their target audience and their mode of filmmaking.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

Also many who are enthusiasts or scholars of silent films have to get used to viewing these films without soundtracks at all because aside from the most popular silent films (especially American ones) there are no new scores recorded for these films! Of course, to you this is all meaningless because you believe that silent films are inherently inferior to sound films

It's not meaningless to me as I have watched films without sound at all and quite a few silent films (with scores). Even so, in common with the vast majority, I still feel silent films are inferior to sound films. I ask again, what is it that you think can be done with a silent film that can't be done with a sound film?

I'm not saying that silent films can't be engaging/entertaining, I have certainly seen some which are but it's simply that they are not engaging enough. There are many engaging/entertaining things in this world, I simply don't have the time or money to indulge in all of them, I have to prioritise those which I personally find the most engaging/entertaining. I still sometimes watch the odd silent film, not because I'm looking to be engaged/entertained but because I believe a better understanding of film and it's history will help me professionally.

I am simply not entertained by escapist films made by Michael Bay ... in fact he's one of the lowest points in all of cinema I have seen (and the reason is that he makes films that I consider to be horrible yet are not entertaining whatsoever, unlike several films that are undoubtedly worse than his). ... Formally they are sloppy, artistically they are shallow ... Perhaps for you they qualify as great entertainment, and for many audiences. But for me personally, they do not.

This is where I strongly disagree, not completely with your conclusions but more with the way you have arrived at them and the way you express them! I'm not arguing that Michael Bay is one of history's greatest filmmakers and I don't disagree that his plots are shallow, the acting no more than adequate and indeed many of the film arts (including sound and music) executed with little apparent subtlety or sophistication. However, based on the fact that you personally aren't engaged/entertained by his films and that the sophistication you are looking for in those film crafts you value is not apparent or non-existent, you conclude Bay is one of the worst filmmakers of all time with no artistic merit. It's fine for you to have and state your opinion that you hate his films but I object to you stating he has no artistic merit and that he's one of the worst filmmakers in history. It's not only insulting to him, it's insulting to anyone who has ever enjoyed one of his films and additionally is simply ignorant of modern film audiences and modern filmmaking!

Again, we're back to your personal definition of film art and the incompetence or ignorance of anyone who doesn't comply with it. The duration of a shot/angle, the edit density, the style and movement of CGI elements/characters, the pacing and shape of a film are all artistic decisions. Creating a few high octane scenes in a film is difficult enough, to maintain back to back high octane scenes almost throughout a film is an incredibly difficult artistic feat. Now the fact that you are not in Bay's target demographic, that his artistic decisions do not engage you personally and therefore that you don't feel that shape, pacing and energy, does not mean there is no artistry in his films. Using your logic, I could say that Tarkovsky is without artistry and the worst filmmaker of all time because his films are too slow, mundane and boring to engage the vast majority of today's teenagers. Of course I wouldn't say that because Tarkovsky obviously wasn't making artistic decisions aimed at engaging today's teenagers.

As an aspiring filmmaker today, there are certain aspects of Bay's artistry which are more important for you to learn than many of the aspects of Tarkovsky's artistry, regardless of which genre/s of film you wish to make or who your target demographic is. Obviously, this is not going to happen though because you can't even recognise that Bay has any artistry, let alone study or learn from it! That's a shame and can only harm your filmmaking and filmmaking prospects.

Quite simply I think that silent films are more effective at telling stories using purely visuals than most sound films.

By definition, a sound film cannot tell a story purely with visuals. The logical question therefore becomes what is "more effective at telling stories", purely visual storytelling or visuals + sound? And of course history provides an emphatic answer! Ultimately it's not even a question of which is better, visual storytelling or aural storytelling, because film evolved past this point in the 1940s. Films like Citizen Kane, the works of Hitchcock and some others, demonstrated that film is not just visual storytelling plus sound (or even just aural storytelling plus visuals) but is an art which derives a new methodology from these two storytelling methods, a methodology which is "more effective at telling stories" than either of them individually. This is, in effect, the definition of film today (and for many decades). A good or great film is not a film just with good/great visuals or a film with just good/great sound, and a point missed by many is that a good/great film is not even a film with BOTH good/great visuals AND good/great sound (!), it is a film where the combination of visuals and sound are good/great. It's this "combination" which is important, not how good one, the other or even both are!

Another reason why silent films are not as appreciated as sound films today is because audiences are less accustomed to it. Since audiences are raised on only viewing the moving image with synchronized sound, it is much more difficult for them to sit down and watch a silent film, let alone enjoy it. ... When talkies came out, people were narrow-minded about silent films.

You can't have it both ways! When talkies came out, audiences had only been raised on silent film and were accustomed to only silent film. Nevertheless, they opened their minds to talkies and decided they were more engaged/entertained and preferred them to silent films. It was an informed decision of preference, far less "narrow-minded" indeed than it's possible to be today. Audiences vastly preferred visuals + sync sound, even if the visuals were not as good as they had been on occasion previously. This still holds true today and is an invaluable lesson for those filmmakers whose main interest/focus is in the visual side of filmmaking!

I don't think that a cinematographer needs to know a ton about sound or any other element.

Of course it depends on what you mean by "a ton" but there is a great danger here, a danger which I encounter quite frequently! It's what Randy Thom and his cohort have described as the "100% syndrome". This is where each department head feels it is 100% their responsibility to tell the story. What you end up with is a film with a potentially great script, great cinematography, great sound, great music, great acting, etc., but where each of these crafts is trying to tell the story on it's own and the resultant combination is actually a poor film, a mish-mash of effectively competing crafts. It's the same as composing and performing a symphony: The orchestral musicians don't play their hearts out all the time, the result would just be a cacophony. Sometimes the musicians sit there, don't play at all and leave the storytelling to other musicians and even when they are playing, they know when to take responsibility for the storytelling and when to just play a supporting role to others who actually have that responsibility at a particular point. So it is (or so it should be!) with a cinematographer (and the other department heads). A cinematographer needs to have a good understanding of film overall, a good understanding of the other crafts and the skill and knowledge to understand how to just play a "supporting role". Of course, the cinematographer also needs a good director, the only person with the overall vision of how the crafts are going to combine in the finished product, to direct them when to play the supporting role, and to whom. This all goes back to what I said above about the "combination" of the crafts.

I think people should try to break down their irrelevant and unnecessary biases against anything. In cinema, these unnecessary biases today are usually against silent films, black & white films, certain genres, against arthouse films, and against foreign films.

I think you are confusing biases with personal choice. I agree that with greater understanding of the processes and history of filmmaking more people would find silent and other historical forms of film more engaging and therefore more entertaining. But we live in a complex and sophisticated world, most of us have to work hard to survive and raise a family and we can only choose one or at most a few areas of particular personal interest outside of our profession in which to become well informed. There is not the time to gain more than a superficial understanding of the vast majority of what we encounter/experience. In other words, the "biases" against silent film (etc.) are not "unnecessary" but an entirely necessary personal choice!

I'll always think that dismissing an entire large part of cinematic history or the cinematic landscape is not a very good way to view cinema, but unfortunately many theoretical critics (and some formalist ones) as well as cinephiles and ESPECIALLY wide audiences arbitrarily decide that some cinema is not worth viewing. I accept this, but I certainly don't approve of this way of viewing cinema.

I don't think that wide audiences do "arbitrarily" decide that some cinema is not worth watching. In the case of films without sound they cannot make a decision of any sort because cinemas do not screen films without sound. In the case of silent films with sound (music) it's not an "arbitrary" decision, it's a decision based on not having been sufficiently engaged by the silent films they've experienced in the past. Going to the cinema is a time consuming and expensive undertaking and an average cinema goer is going to try and minimise the risk of wasting their time/money on a film which they don't find engaging/entertaining. Without a deeper appreciation of the history and evolution of cinema, a silent film represents far too big a risk.

G

 

[nefilmgroup]

I think silent movies are boring. I struggle to sit through them, especially if they're a feature. The only exception I have is for Buster Keaton movies. They're usually pretty funny.

 

[MiniJamesW]

It's not meaningless to me as I have watched films without sound at all and quite a few silent films (with scores). Even so, in common with the vast majority, I still feel silent films are inferior to sound films. I ask again, what is it that you think can be done with a silent film that can't be done with a sound film?

I do feel like I answered your question the first time I tried to respond. But even then, I really don't see why that even has to be the question. I can see you asking this question to someone like Ebert or anyone who believes that silent films are superior. But I simply think that they are different art forms that should be appreciated in different ways, and I think that they are equal in their potential to move the viewer. Yes, the demographic of people who will be moved or will even enjoy silent films is much smaller than the target audience of sound films, but I think this is no different than arthouse films or foreign films or black & white films today. It's just a type of cinema that appeals to a different type of audience, and I don't think it should be labeled inferior for this reason.

I'm not saying that silent films can't be engaging/entertaining, I have certainly seen some which are but it's simply that they are not engaging enough. There are many engaging/entertaining things in this world, I simply don't have the time or money to indulge in all of them, I have to prioritise those which I personally find the most engaging/entertaining. I still sometimes watch the odd silent film, not because I'm looking to be engaged/entertained but because I believe a better understanding of film and it's history will help me professionally.

Well I guess this is a good point. You just probably don't fit in the group of people that appreciate a lot of silent cinema, and that's perfectly fine. I just don't like how you label silent films as inherently inferior to sound films. For me as a cinephile I try to embrace all types of cinema (because cinema dominates most of my life, although I have other interests mostly within the arts and the humanities) and as I mentioned, I try my best to not dismiss an entire part of cinema (even though yes I am guilty of having what I call 'unnecessary biases').

This is where I strongly disagree, not completely with your conclusions but more with the way you have arrived at them and the way you express them! I'm not arguing that Michael Bay is one of history's greatest filmmakers and I don't disagree that his plots are shallow, the acting no more than adequate and indeed many of the film arts (including sound and music) executed with little apparent subtlety or sophistication. However, based on the fact that you personally aren't engaged/entertained by his films and that the sophistication you are looking for in those film crafts you value is not apparent or non-existent, you conclude Bay is one of the worst filmmakers of all time with no artistic merit. It's fine for you to have and state your opinion that you hate his films but I object to you stating he has no artistic merit and that he's one of the worst filmmakers in history. It's not only insulting to him, it's insulting to anyone who has ever enjoyed one of his films and additionally is simply ignorant of modern film audiences and modern filmmaking!

Okay, I would not say that Michael Bay has no artistic merit at all. I think that Michael Bay's films are a part of film art, they are just a very bad part of film art that isn't focused on telling great stories or developing cinematic aesthetics or giving an honest portrayal on a subject, instead it is focused purely on commercialism and making the most money at the box-office. For me personally, he is one of the worst filmmakers of all-time simply because the quality of his films and even his ideal vision for cinema is simply awful IN MY OPINION. Now, if we start to discuss his merits as a filmmaker with a more 'objective' view, I would have to say that he is DEFINITELY NOT the worst filmmaker of all-time. I know perfectly well that Bay's spectacles are superior to a film like Happy Ghost V or Santa Claus Conquers The Martians (two films that I know are awful but that for different reasons I happen to enjoy). I also know that Bay has some level of talent and puts a lot of effort into his films. If we're talking about a more 'objective' view of cinema, I would have to conclude that Bay isn't the worst filmmaker of all-time, but that he is still not a good filmmaker. Now from my subjective point of view, his films are among the ones I've enjoyed the least. Maybe the way I have written about Bay make it seem like I believe he has no artistic merit or that he's the worst filmmaker ever in an 'objective' way, but no I just feel like he is one of my least favorite filmmakers and not a very good one (even though he isn't the worst).

I think you should say modern commercial filmmaking, and not modern filmmaking because I don't think that Michael Bay's films represent the whole of modern cinema (unless that is that modern cinema can only be defined by mainstream American cinema).

Again, we're back to your personal definition of film art and the incompetence or ignorance of anyone who doesn't comply with it. The duration of a shot/angle, the edit density, the style and movement of CGI elements/characters, the pacing and shape of a film are all artistic decisions.

This is mostly true but I don't think someone who doesn't comply with my point of view about cinema is ignorant or incompetent. I think that Bay makes bad films that happen to be among my least favorite films (but they aren't the worst that cinema has to offer 'objectively' not even close). And I personally like some films that I feel are worse than Bay's films.

Creating a few high octane scenes in a film is difficult enough, to maintain back to back high octane scenes almost throughout a film is an incredibly difficult artistic feat.

I don't think this is an artistic feat, I think it is a lack of good judgement or taste. But I will say that this is my personal opinion.

Now the fact that you are not in Bay's target demographic, that his artistic decisions do not engage you personally and therefore that you don't feel that shape, pacing and energy, does not mean there is no artistry in his films. Using your logic, I could say that Tarkovsky is without artistry and the worst filmmaker of all time because his films are too slow, mundane and boring to engage the vast majority of today's teenagers. Of course I wouldn't say that because Tarkovsky obviously wasn't making artistic decisions aimed at engaging today's teenagers.

This is true, but I think that Bay isn't even a great filmmaker in his own realm. I would accept a criticism of Tarkovsky if the points were valid. If you say Sergei Parajanov did a better job or criticized Tarkovsky's work within his own type of cinema then that is fine. In my opinion, Bay just doesn't reach the heights of the greatest blockbusters. I'm not comparing Bay to Tarkovsky or Ozu or even commercial filmmakers of different eras such as David Lean or Alfred Hitchcock. I'll have to watch more Michael Bay films and his contemporaries to do a more proper evaluation, that much I will admit. I'm just curious, is Michael Bay one of the greats within his realm of cinema? If we were to discuss contemporary American blockbuster cinema would you say that Michael Bay is one of the greats? Here I'll admit completely that I am not too familiar with these films as I stopped watching them in around 2009. Though I will say that I saw Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol, Fast Five, The Avengers, and The Amazing Spider-Man 2 and I thought these films were much better than Michael Bay's films. Still, I wouldn't consider myself well-informed enough in this type of cinema (yet) to make a reliable evaluation, so you got me there!

As an aspiring filmmaker today, there are certain aspects of Bay's artistry which are more important for you to learn than many of the aspects of Tarkovsky's artistry, regardless of which genre/s of film you wish to make or who your target demographic is. Obviously, this is not going to happen though because you can't even recognise that Bay has any artistry, let alone study or learn from it! That's a shame and can only harm your filmmaking and filmmaking prospects.

Well can you name me a specific example of Bay's artistry that would appeal to a demographic that is more interested in 'arthouse' films or films that weren't originally arthouse but that appeal to this audience (basically classic studio cinema from almost any country). I can't really think of any but if you can name me an example then I'll take your word for it. I might give a Bay film a try anyway though, can you tell me which one you think is his most important film? I've seen the first two Transformers films and I hate them. I saw some scenes from Pearl Harbor that had pretty spectacle going on but I wasn't interested in watching the rest of the film. I actually genuinely wanted to see The Rock as I think that may be a good film, is this a good place to start? I also might see Pain & Gain because I grew up on wrestling and loved The Rock, and because it has a Christian faith element that may appeal to me since I went to a Christian private school. Once again, I think that Bay must have some element of artistry, just not any artistry that appeals to me and not one that I think should be supported by anyone (because it's based on an extremely commercialized view of film).

By definition, a sound film cannot tell a story purely with visuals. The logical question therefore becomes what is "more effective at telling stories", purely visual storytelling or visuals + sound? And of course history provides an emphatic answer! Ultimately it's not even a question of which is better, visual storytelling or aural storytelling, because film evolved past this point in the 1940s. Films like Citizen Kane, the works of Hitchcock and some others, demonstrated that film is not just visual storytelling plus sound (or even just aural storytelling plus visuals) but is an art which derives a new methodology from these two storytelling methods, a methodology which is "more effective at telling stories" than either of them individually. This is, in effect, the definition of film today (and for many decades). A good or great film is not a film just with good/great visuals or a film with just good/great sound, and a point missed by many is that a good/great film is not even a film with BOTH good/great visuals AND good/great sound (!), it is a film where the combination of visuals and sound are good/great. It's this "combination" which is important, not how good one, the other or even both are!

Yes the combination is very important, but some directors are better at some things than others. I think it depends a lot on the context of what the filmmaker is trying to do, but in general I think that this view of modern cinema is correct.

However, I think that some silent films give me an experience that is just as good and sometimes greater than many sound films. And I think that some people agree when they watch a Chaplin film or a Keaton film. Sound films definitely are more effective in engaging a larger amount of viewers, that is undeniable. But I think that silent films can be just as good to an audience that is willing to learn about them and appreciate them. I have a silent film in my top 10 favorites and many on my favorite films list, and I love these films a lot. I know that they don't appeal to a ton of people, just like foreign films, silent films, black & white films, arthouse films, experimental films, westerns, and musicals, I just don't think this says anything about their quality.

You can't have it both ways! When talkies came out, audiences had only been raised on silent film and were accustomed to only silent film. Nevertheless, they opened their minds to talkies and decided they were more engaged/entertained and preferred them to silent films. It was an informed decision of preference, far less "narrow-minded" indeed than it's possible to be today. Audiences vastly preferred visuals + sync sound, even if the visuals were not as good as they had been on occasion previously. This still holds true today and is an invaluable lesson for those filmmakers whose main interest/focus is in the visual side of filmmaking!

Changing one narrow-minded view to another narrow-minded view isn't having an open mind. Having an open mind cinematically is being willing to view any film without prejudice against the type of film it is. I'm not entirely open minded, but I try harder than most I think.

I agree with the second part of this quote. When we make films today, we have to put just as much effort into sound than into visuals. And just like you say before, it is the combination of these two that has to be great, not just one individually or even both individually.

Of course it depends on what you mean by "a ton" but there is a great danger here, a danger which I encounter quite frequently! It's what Randy Thom and his cohort have described as the "100% syndrome". This is where each department head feels it is 100% their responsibility to tell the story. What you end up with is a film with a potentially great script, great cinematography, great sound, great music, great acting, etc., but where each of these crafts is trying to tell the story on it's own and the resultant combination is actually a poor film, a mish-mash of effectively competing crafts. It's the same as composing and performing a symphony: The orchestral musicians don't play their hearts out all the time, the result would just be a cacophony. Sometimes the musicians sit there, don't play at all and leave the storytelling to other musicians and even when they are playing, they know when to take responsibility for the storytelling and when to just play a supporting role to others who actually have that responsibility at a particular point. So it is (or so it should be!) with a cinematographer (and the other department heads). A cinematographer needs to have a good understanding of film overall, a good understanding of the other crafts and the skill and knowledge to understand how to just play a "supporting role". Of course, the cinematographer also needs a good director, the only person with the overall vision of how the crafts are going to combine in the finished product, to direct them when to play the supporting role, and to whom. This all goes back to what I said above about the "combination" of the crafts.

Okay I agree with this 100%. Indeed, it is the masterful combination of the crafts that creates great cinema. Every member working on a film has to be aware of the other crafts and how their work is a part of a whole. I agree with this, I just meant that each filmmaker doesn't have to know a lot about the other crafts (and by a lot, I mean well enough to perform extremely well in these crafts). I think you can agree with this. The cinematographer doesn't have to be a great composer or a great costume designer, but he/she needs to know how his/her work fits into a whole film that works along side the music and costume design.

I think you are confusing biases with personal choice. I agree that with greater understanding of the processes and history of filmmaking more people would find silent and other historical forms of film more engaging and therefore more entertaining. But we live in a complex and sophisticated world, most of us have to work hard to survive and raise a family and we can only choose one or at most a few areas of particular personal interest outside of our profession in which to become well informed. There is not the time to gain more than a superficial understanding of the vast majority of what we encounter/experience. In other words, the "biases" against silent film (etc.) are not "unnecessary" but an entirely necessary personal choice!

I think that they are definitely biases because they are prejudices against whole realms of cinema.

Yes most of us have to work hard and have lives outside of cinema. I guess my argument is more applicable to just cinephiles/critics. These biases are unnecessary to cinephiles/critics because they dismiss whole realms of cinema.

If we're talking about people in general, yes the problem is that we don't have the time and resources to be able to explore everything fully. As much as I am learning about cinema (as well as music, literature, theater, culture, religion, philosophy, and art to a lesser extent as they are my other interests), I know that I am definitely not learning at all about cuisine or science or sports or most other things in the world. I wouldn't blame people in general for having a superficial understanding of cinema because everyone has superficial understanding of subjects that are not their primary interests. What I don't understand is why you seem to value the opinions of people with superficial understanding of cinema than people who have greater understanding of cinema (cinephiles and critics). I understand if you're talking about cinema's appeal to large audiences, then yes the common person watching film has a more relevant opinoin. But if we're talking about cinematic art (which is a concept that you seem to not believe in, and that's fair), then I think that cinephiles and critics have more relevant opinions. Of course I think especially with critics it gets tricky since many are motivated by agendas and cultural or cinematic theories that limit their understanding of cinema, but that's a completely different topic.

I don't think that wide audiences do "arbitrarily" decide that some cinema is not worth watching. In the case of films without sound they cannot make a decision of any sort because cinemas do not screen films without sound. In the case of silent films with sound (music) it's not an "arbitrary" decision, it's a decision based on not having been sufficiently engaged by the silent films they've experienced in the past. Going to the cinema is a time consuming and expensive undertaking and an average cinema goer is going to try and minimise the risk of wasting their time/money on a film which they don't find engaging/entertaining. Without a deeper appreciation of the history and evolution of cinema, a silent film represents far too big a risk.

Films are not only viewed in cinemas, nor are they primarily viewed in cinemas any more so what cinemas are screening is irrelevant. I think most of these decisions are based on prejudices against certain types of films, indeed many people have not even seen one silent film yet they won't sit down and watch one. Nor do I think one or two bad experiences with a silent film justifies them dismissing all of them. But yes if we're talking about the average film goer, they simply don't care. And I don't think it matters that much, I think that many of my arguments are irrelevant to them. But in that case, I think that the mainstream cinema that they view should improve (as I sincerely believe that in general mainstream films in the past were superior to the current films that are out there). Yes I know that much of our view of old cinema is not accurate because only the good stuff is remembered. But I think that the amount of good films from the past in mainstream American cinema will heavily outnumber the good films remembered from mainstream cinema today.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

"[what is it that you think can be done with a silent film that can't be done with a sound film?]" ... I do feel like I answered your question the first time I tried to respond.

No you didn't, and you still haven't!

I think that Michael Bay's films are a part of film art, they are just a very bad part of film art that isn't focused on telling great stories or developing cinematic aesthetics or giving an honest portrayal on a subject, instead it is focused purely on commercialism and making the most money at the box-office.

I don't think someone who doesn't comply with my point of view about cinema is ignorant or incompetent. I think that Bay makes bad films that happen to be among my least favorite films ...

These two statements contradict each other!! You state that you define "good" film art by it's; focus on telling great stories, developing cinematic aesthetics, giving an honest portrayal of a subject and not being focused on pure commercialism. Because Bay's films do not engage you personally and because (as far as you can see) his films do not conform to your personal definition of a "good" film, you conclude he's a terrible filmmaker. There are two problems with this conclusion:

1. There are other definitions of what constitutes a good film or good film art and I dispute your definition.
2. Even according to your definition, some of your arguments against Bay are incorrect!

Dealing with the first point: 1. I personally don't think that great films are based on great stories, many of the great films appear to me to be based on relatively mundane or ordinary stories. What's great about the films is the way the stories are told rather than how great the stories themselves are. 2. I'm not sure how you are defining "cinematic aesthetics" but I suspect more narrowly than I do. I presume you consider that Citizen Kane develops cinematic aesthetics (as do I) but what about Star Wars? Almost regardless of how you define "cinematic aesthetics" I don't feel that developing cinematic aesthetics is essential to even a great film, let alone just a good one. For example, The Godfather operates well within the established limits of cinematic aesthetics of it's time. 3. Fiction is by definition dishonest, are you saying that all fictional films are therefore bad film art? Even in the case of factual films, most provide honesty only as perceived from a certain point of view, say a character or the filmmaker. 4. All cinematic films have to be focused to some extent on commercialism. So, it becomes a matter of degree of focus on commercialism, of how obvious you personally find the commercialism to be in a particular film and of course that you personally don't like to be reminded of the commercial necessities of film.

Dealing with the second point: In the making of Transformers Bay wanted a highly detailed, organic fluidity to the movement of the transformers. This was a decision which pushed the limits of what was technically possible at the time. I mention this for three reasons: 1. This was an entirely artistic/aesthetic cinematic decision. 2. ILM, arguably the foremost CGI company in the world, could not render the detail and motion Bay required and had to massively upgrade their render farms. The result is an advancement/development of cinematic aesthetics. 3. This artistic decision was hugely expensive both in terms of the sheer man hours required and because of the required ILM upgrades. If Bay was focused purely on commercialism, he would have sacrificed his artistic vision in favour of the cheaper alternatives recommended by the artistic directors and animators at ILM. This is just one example (of many) which contradicts your assertions regarding Bay, even by your own definition of film art. It is possible that you don't consider CGI to be a "formal" part of cinema and that you don't recognise that CGI is in any way "artistic". Again though, that would be just your personal definition, not a widely accepted definition amongst filmmakers and film goers and certainly not a definition accepted by Bay or his target audience.

I think you should say modern commercial filmmaking, and not modern filmmaking because I don't think that Michael Bay's films represent the whole of modern cinema ...

All cinema is to some extent commercial and of course Bay's films don't represent the whole of modern cinema, no one's films do or even could, because modern cinema is constantly evolving.

I don't think this is an artistic feat, I think it is a lack of good judgement or taste. But I will say that this is my personal opinion.

You honestly think that creating and maintaining pace and excitement in your target audience is not an artistic feat and just poor taste? You've just dismissed as a "lack of good judgement" pretty much all of the great films and great filmmakers including the ones you said you admire (Spielberg for example)?!!

I'm just curious, is Michael Bay one of the greats within his realm of cinema? If we were to discuss contemporary American blockbuster cinema would you say that Michael Bay is one of the greats?

My personal opinion is irrelevant but let me turn the question around. Would you give $100m to someone to make a film who wasn't great at making films and then give them $200m to make another one and another $200m for another one?

Well can you name me a specific example of Bay's artistry that would appeal to a demographic that is more interested in 'arthouse' films or films that weren't originally arthouse but that appeal to this audience (basically classic studio cinema from almost any country). I can't really think of any but if you can name me an example then I'll take your word for it.

You honestly can't think of any, really? To be honest, I find that shocking coming from someone who professes to have more than a superficial understanding of film or aspires to making their own films! Are you really saying that you want to make films which never contain at least some scenes of high drama, tension or excitement?

I might give a Bay film a try anyway though, can you tell me which one you think is his most important film? I've seen the first two Transformers films and I hate them.

As a cinephile/viewer, with your definition of "important", "good" and "artistic", there is none of Bay's films I would recommend you to watch. As an aspiring filmmaker, whether you hate Bay's films or not is irrelevant, what's relevant is whether or not you can learn something from them. All the evidence so far suggests that you are unable to identify any of Bay's artistry or principles of filmmaking which you would consider "important" or worth learning. Due to this inability, I again have to say; there is none of Bay's films I would recommend to you.

Yes the combination is very important, but some directors are better at some things than others.

All directors in my experience are better at some things than others. What separates the good from the not so good directors is the ability to identify what they are good and not so good at and to put in the effort/find ways to make sure the final product does not suffer because of their lack of ability or interest in some areas.

I think that some silent films give me an experience that is just as good and sometimes greater than many sound films ... I think that silent films can be just as good to an audience that is willing to learn about them and appreciate them.

I respect your opinion that you find silent films to be as good or better than sound films, even though I personally disagree with it. But I don't have as much respect for your assertion of what other people's opinion would be. I, for example, have learnt something about silent film and I still don't feel they are as good and I know quite a few people in a similar situation with similar views. It's also a rather futile point to make because as we've agreed, for good, justifiable reasons, most people are not willing to learn about them.

Changing one narrow-minded view to another narrow-minded view isn't having an open mind.

By definition it is, at least to some significant extent. If one were truly narrow-minded one wouldn't be receptive to other views and therefore would not be able to change views. Having an unbiased, truly open mind is virtually impossible when it comes to art because we all have our own experience of life, our own interpretation of art and our own personal preferences, all of which create biases. That's why I personally make my own distinction; art which I "like" and art which I "appreciate". For example, I appreciate a number of silent films but there are few which I like and none which I love.

What I don't understand is why you seem to value the opinions of people with superficial understanding of cinema than people who have greater understanding of cinema (cinephiles and critics).

I don't only value the opinions of people with a superficial understanding of film (the average cinema goer). I also value the opinion of cinephiles and critics but compared to many with more than a superficial understanding of cinema, I do place considerable (and often more) weight on the opinion of the average cinema goer. There are four main reasons for this:

1. The people with a superficial understanding of cinema make up the vast majority of cinema goers. Without them there would be little or no cinema and few, if any, of the films considered "great" (by the public and the critics) would ever have been made.
2. Virtually all of the "great" (and indeed the vast majority of even the not so great) films I can think of were primarily designed and made for the average cinema goer.
3. Having greater knowledge of the history and process of cinema does not necessarily lead to a "greater understanding" of cinema, in fact it commonly seems to lead to a lesser understanding! Consider that wide release theatrical films are by definition primarily designed for the average cinema goer. A cinephile/critic, well educated in the history/process of film, by definition no longer has a "superficial understanding" of film, is no longer an average cinema goer, is no longer a member of the primary target demographic and is therefore less likely to be engaged by the film or even appreciate how that film is (or is not) engaging to it's target demographic!
4. As has already been mentioned; many cinephiles and critics have their own personal agendas/biases and generally only have substantially more than a superficial understanding in some of the film crafts.

Films are not only viewed in cinemas, nor are they primarily viewed in cinemas any more so what cinemas are screening is irrelevant.

Just in your last post alone you used the word "cinema" or "cinematic" 40 times and countless more times in posts prior to that. Now you're saying that what is screened in a cinema is "irrelevant"!?

G

 

[MiniJamesW]

No you didn't, and you still haven't!

Yes I have, even though I think it is an irrelevant question to me personally (it is a more relevant question to ask to Ebert or other critics/cinephiles that believe that silent films are somehow superior). But I did answer that they are better at communicating ideas and telling stories through purely visuals, most of the time. I also said that physical comedy in silent cinema is in general more accomplished than physical comedy in sound cinema. These are both opinions, but they are answers to your question.

These two statements contradict each other!! You state that you define "good" film art by it's; focus on telling great stories, developing cinematic aesthetics, giving an honest portrayal of a subject and not being focused on pure commercialism. Because Bay's films do not engage you personally and because (as far as you can see) his films do not conform to your personal definition of a "good" film, you conclude he's a terrible filmmaker. There are two problems with this conclusion:

Okay first of all, I didn't intend what I said to be a comprehensive definition of what is good film art. I think it's clear that I don't care for great stories (as in not mundane stories) when my favorite filmmaker is Yasujiro Ozu! I just gave a few examples of what I think good film art is because as my posts are already quite lengthy, I really believe that if I were to discuss what consists of good film art, I may have to write a long form essay that is subject to countless revisions, because great film art often times breaks the rules to make something innovative and new and widens my conception of what good film art is.

I said that I think Michael Bay is a bad filmmaker, basically for the reasons you agreed with in your previous post. Maybe you think my conclusion is problematic, but I feel like I can't place Bay in the category of a good filmmaker, even within his type of cinema. That's my personal opinion, and I don't think it's any less valid than the opinion of anyone with similar experience to myself. I admit, I have a lot to learn just like everyone else, maybe I'm not ready to appreciate Bay's films yet. But at this moment, no I cannot appreciate Bay's artistry, though again, I admit that there is definitely artistry behind his work.

1. There are other definitions of what constitutes a good film or good film art and I dispute your definition

.

You're right, there are many (countless) definitions on what constitutes good film art. I can't speak for all of them, I can only speak for myself. But more experienced cinephiles and critics generally agree with my conclusion (even if we don't agree on every point on how we reach that conclusion).

Dealing with the first point: 1. I personally don't think that great films are based on great stories, many of the great films appear to me to be based on relatively mundane or ordinary stories. What's great about the films is the way the stories are told rather than how great the stories themselves are

.

As I stated above, the things I mentioned weren't meant to be a complete criteria or list of qualities that good film art must have, they were just some examples mentioned off the top of my head. I love 'mundane' or 'ordinary' stories, my favorite genre is the home drama, and my favorite film director is Yasujiro Ozu who made a career of making films about ordinary people. In fact, my dream is to make films about ordinary people just like my filmmaking heroes.

2. I'm not sure how you are defining "cinematic aesthetics" but I suspect more narrowly than I do. I presume you consider that Citizen Kane develops cinematic aesthetics (as do I) but what about Star Wars? Almost regardless of how you define "cinematic aesthetics" I don't feel that developing cinematic aesthetics is essential to even a great film, let alone just a good one. For example, The Godfather operates well within the established limits of cinematic aesthetics of it's time.

I don't think this is a required element of a good or even great film. It's just one of the possibilities. And I happen to believe that The Godfather actually did develop cinematic aesthetics by essentially perfecting the gangster genre that was codified by Hollywood many years before, this was done in many ways that we can discuss. I think Star Wars also develops cinematic aesthetics by bringing together countless cinematic and literary myths together to create a saga that recodifies the originals in order to make them more relevant to the tastes of mainstream audiences during their release. The original trilogy was probably the first popular film(s) to do this.

3. Fiction is by definition dishonest, are you saying that all fictional films are therefore bad film art? Even in the case of factual films, most provide honesty only as perceived from a certain point of view, say a character or the filmmaker.

Okay this is purely your point of view. For many, fiction can seem more honest than reality. Here we just have very differing views on fiction, but neither of our views are a given. I believe that the greatest works of fiction not only can be honest but MUST be honest. But in this case I think we have different views on what fiction can do, and what honesty might consist of. In your second sentence, I think you almost imply that honesty cannot even be expressed in any way because every expression must come from a certain point of view of an individual or organization or nation, etc. If you are using a very strict definition of honesty then even I would agree with you, but I don't happen to use this definition when I say "honesty" so I can't agree.

4. All cinematic films have to be focused to some extent on commercialism. So, it becomes a matter of degree of focus on commercialism, of how obvious you personally find the commercialism to be in a particular film and of course that you personally don't like to be reminded of the commercial necessities of film.

This is indeed subjective, but it can be observed that Michael Bay's films are much more focused on the commercial aspect of film. This aspect of film is not satisfying to me, nor is it something that is taken into account in my view of what "film art". Most critics and cinephiles don't discuss the merits of a film based on its commercialism. The problem with Bay's films for me is that I find them to be void of pretty much anything that's not commercial. And commercialism alone does not make a great film to me.

Dealing with the second point: In the making of Transformers Bay wanted a highly detailed, organic fluidity to the movement of the transformers. This was a decision which pushed the limits of what was technically possible at the time. I mention this for three reasons: 1. This was an entirely artistic/aesthetic cinematic decision. 2. ILM, arguably the foremost CGI company in the world, could not render the detail and motion Bay required and had to massively upgrade their render farms. The result is an advancement/development of cinematic aesthetics. 3. This artistic decision was hugely expensive both in terms of the sheer man hours required and because of the required ILM upgrades. If Bay was focused purely on commercialism, he would have sacrificed his artistic vision in favour of the cheaper alternatives recommended by the artistic directors and animators at ILM. This is just one example (of many) which contradicts your assertions regarding Bay, even by your own definition of film art.

You may be right, but isn't it possible that Bay wanted to create highly detailed special effects because they appeal to a mainstream audience which would earn him money? I think that's a possibility, but I may be wrong.

It is possible that you don't consider CGI to be a "formal" part of cinema and that you don't recognise that CGI is in any way "artistic". Again though, that would be just your personal definition, not a widely accepted definition amongst filmmakers and film goers and certainly not a definition accepted by Bay or his target audience.

CGI is definitely a formal element of cinema. However, one great formal element of film does not make a great film. Every single film that I would label as a great film (even ones that I don't personally like) has more than one great use of a formal element of cinema. Furthermore, it is the result of the synthesis of formal elements that matters most, and I feel that here Bay's film definitely fails. Of course this is all still my opinion but it's just the same as you having your opinion or average film goers having their own opinions.

All cinema is to some extent commercial and of course Bay's films don't represent the whole of modern cinema, no one's films do or even could, because modern cinema is constantly evolving.

Exactly, so you can't say that I'm "simply ignorant about modern film audiences and modern filmmaking" based on the fact that I don't appreciate Michael Bay's films, especially considering the fact that I do appreciate films within the same filmmaking period and mode that Bay works in. That's the only reason I brought this up.

You honestly think that creating and maintaining pace and excitement in your target audience is not an artistic feat and just poor taste? You've just dismissed as a "lack of good judgement" pretty much all of the great films and great filmmakers including the ones you said you admire (Spielberg for example)

I don't think that "[maintaining] back to back high octane scenes almost throughout a film is an incredibly difficult artistic feat" is the same as "creating and maintaining pace and excitement in your target audience." The first statement shows that the filmmaker lacks skill in creating a pace that suits the film and instead resorts to keeping one note for almost the entire film. The second is a more general statement, but of course it could be that Bay's target audiences enjoy a nearly one note pace in their cinema, but in that case I'll say that they lack good judgment of what good pacing is IMO. It may even sound wrong to say such a thing, but I think that people enjoying this pacing in cinema is due to ignorance on cinema in general. Spielberg is great at creating blockbusters because he does more than just hit us with high octane scene one after another, at least that's what I think.

My personal opinion is irrelevant but let me turn the question around. Would you give $100m to someone to make a film who wasn't great at making films and then give them $200m to make another one and another $200m for another one?

If I were a strict capitalist (as most of Bay's backers probably are), I would give $100m to someone who was great at making films that make money (a very commercial filmmaker like Bay) and then give them as much money as they need for subsequent projects because I want to make a profit. This is what I think the situation is with Michael Bay.

People give money to Wong Kar-Wai or Abbas Kiarostami or Tsai Ming-liang for more artistic and cultural reasons, because they are willing to give this money, knowing fully that these filmmakers won't make them a lot of money. In fact, much of foreign cinema is now funded by nonprofit arts organizations and governments in other nations because no one who wants to make money with cinema will give money to people who make great arthouse films.

You honestly can't think of any, really? To be honest, I find that shocking coming from someone who professes to have more than a superficial understanding of film or aspires to making their own films! Are you really saying that you want to make films which never contain at least some scenes of high drama, tension or excitement?

No I don't, because most people within my target audience hate Michael Bay films. I think it's obvious why I can't find even one reason why I should learn from him when trying to reach my target audience. But even if you are shocked, I would prefer that you actually help me and tell me a bit so I can learn. I have strong opinions, but I am also very willing to learn.

Also, Bay is not the only source of filmmaking knowledge on those subjects. I think that Alfred Hitchcock and Steven Spielberg are better sources on those aspects of cinema. But to answer your question directly, I probably won't make films like that. I prefer more ascetic cinema, so I want to make films that are ascetic. And even then there are a lot of other kinds of films that I prefer to films that contain 'high drama', 'tension', and 'excitement.' As a cinephile, I try to embrace every kind of film, and in an ideal world I would love to make every single kind of film possible. But I know that it is impossible for many reasons, and few filmmakers are great at trying several genres (and fewer still are great at jumping between mainstream and arthouse cinema). Each filmmaker has his/her own major concerns and themes, that type of cinema is not the kind of cinema I primarily want to make. As much as I love a lot of those films, it's just not something that I even feel that I am capable of creating (just like Spielberg isn't capable of making an Ozu-esque film and Ozu was definitely not capable of making Spielberg-esque film).

As a cinephile/viewer, with your definition of "important", "good" and "artistic", there is none of Bay's films I would recommend you to watch. As an aspiring filmmaker, whether you hate Bay's films or not is irrelevant, what's relevant is whether or not you can learn something from them. All the evidence so far suggests that you are unable to identify any of Bay's artistry or principles of filmmaking which you would consider "important" or worth learning. Due to this inability, I again have to say; there is none of Bay's films I would recommend to you.

Well I still wanted a recommendation so that I can overcome this inability. I haven't seen Bay's films in a long time anyway, so maybe it's time I give them a chance. In this case, I'm not looking for important, good, or artistic cinema, I'm just trying to learn, so you can give me recommendations on the Bay films I would learn from most.

All directors in my experience are better at some things than others. What separates the good from the not so good directors is the ability to identify what they are good and not so good at and to put in the effort/find ways to make sure the final product does not suffer because of their lack of ability or interest in some areas.

I agree with this.

I respect your opinion that you find silent films to be as good or better than sound films, even though I personally disagree with it. But I don't have as much respect for your assertion of what other people's opinion would be. I, for example, have learnt something about silent film and I still don't feel they are as good and I know quite a few people in a similar situation with similar views. It's also a rather futile point to make because as we've agreed, for good, justifiable reasons, most people are not willing to learn about them.

That's fine. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point. I think people not having preconceptions about different types of cinema would be the ideal, especially within the cinephile community. In certain ways, I am not even so much against your opinion since you clearly have explored silent cinema, so it isn't even a preconception. I still am against the way you make a sweeping judgment about silent cinema, just as you would probably be against me if I made a sweeping judgment of all contemporary mainstream American cinema (which I admittedly used to make, but I have changed my mind as I am starting to watch more of these films!).

By definition it is, at least to some significant extent. If one were truly narrow-minded one wouldn't be receptive to other views and therefore would not be able to change views. Having an unbiased, truly open mind is virtually impossible when it comes to art because we all have our own experience of life, our own interpretation of art and our own personal preferences, all of which create biases. That's why I personally make my own distinction; art which I "like" and art which I "appreciate". For example, I appreciate a number of silent films but there are few which I like and none which I love.

I am still not convinced that changing one narrow minded view to another is evidence of an open mind. Yes the ideal is impossible, but when discussing silent cinema vs. sound cinema, historically it couldn't be further from the ideal 'open mind' approach. I think we should try our best to be closer to that ideal open mind when looking at general categories, of course with individual films it is too difficult to do.

I agree with the way you make your distinction, I actually take this approach. There are some films that I love or like, even though I think they are not good (which is basically saying that I don't appreciate them). There are films that I love or like that I also think are great or good. There are films that I'm not too crazy about (either I don't like them at all or I don't like them too much) but I think there is a level of greatness to them: for example I don't like Requiem For A Dream too much, but I think it's a very good film aside from the fact that the best parts are ripped off. Also, I HATE Amelie passionately, but I wouldn't say it's a bad film, in fact it's a good film for what it's trying to accomplish. I think it's important to separate these categories.

Yet of course, I think we should always be able to say "you know what, even though most people think this film is crap, I'm going to try to make a cogent argument onj why it is good." Or we should be able to say "even though this is a sacred cow of cinema, I think it doesn't deserve all of its praise so I'm going to give a cogent argument on why I think the film is not good or not as good as people claim." These discussions can be very fruitful if they are based on valid reasons and everyone participating is respectful.

 

[MiniJamesW]

Too much characters in my post so I had to split them haha!

I don't only value the opinions of people with a superficial understanding of film (the average cinema goer). I also value the opinion of cinephiles and critics but compared to many with more than a superficial understanding of cinema, I do place considerable (and often more) weight on the opinion of the average cinema goer. There are four main reasons for this:

1. The people with a superficial understanding of cinema make up the vast majority of cinema goers. Without them there would be little or no cinema and few, if any, of the films considered "great" (by the public and the critics) would ever have been made.
2. Virtually all of the "great" (and indeed the vast majority of even the not so great) films I can think of were primarily designed and made for the average cinema goer.
3. Having greater knowledge of the history and process of cinema does not necessarily lead to a "greater understanding" of cinema, in fact it commonly seems to lead to a lesser understanding! Consider that wide release theatrical films are by definition primarily designed for the average cinema goer. A cinephile/critic, well educated in the history/process of film, by definition no longer has a "superficial understanding" of film, is no longer an average cinema goer, is no longer a member of the primary target demographic and is therefore less likely to be engaged by the film or even appreciate how that film is (or is not) engaging to it's target demographic!
4. As has already been mentioned; many cinephiles and critics have their own personal agendas/biases and generally only have substantially more than a superficial understanding in some of the film crafts.

Okay I like how you stated all of your reasons very clearly, I like how your approach is based on reason. But of course I have responses

First of all, 'the public' is a very abstract concept that also changes all of the time and according to various views. The American 'public' of the 70's is much different from the American 'public' today. Also, is the 'public' limited to American audiences or to worldwide audiences in general or are there different 'publics' found in each individual national cinema? Much of cinema is dominated by Anglophone views, and I think this is inherently bad to the development of cinema as a whole. When most people mention films that appeal to the 'public' they don't discuss Mikio Naruse or Tadashi Imai in Japan as being major filmmakers or Hou Hsiao-hsien's A City Of Sadness being a major hit in Taiwan and pretty much only label hits according to the popular films within an American context (a context that is pretty much only takes into account recent films as well!). At most people mention the success of Bollywood and the Hong Kong cinema of the 70's - early 90's, but even then people don't tend to count them as being major films with the 'public.'

In response to your number 2: I'm not sure if you admire arthouse cinema, but most of it is not made for the 'public.' Most of my favorite contemporary films are not made for the 'public.' And a lot of my favorites from the 50's - 70's were not made for the 'public'. And once again, the 'public' is a very difficult concept to grasp unless you clarify your personal use of this word. Mikio Naruse was huge with the 'public' in his nation in his era, and I love his films, but most people today wouldn't say that Naruse is a major filmmaker for the 'public' as most people don't even know his name at all!

Okay I kind of agree with number 3 really, but I definitely think that someone with more experience with cinema has greater understanding of cinema as a whole. However, they usually have less understanding of cinema that appeals to more general audiences.

I agree with number 4, but I think that general audiences have their own biases as well based both on content and what ticks me even more is that they have biases based on film form. But as you mentioned before, most average viewers don't have the time or don't even care enough to really obsess about films as I and other cinephiles do haha

Just in your last post alone you used the word "cinema" or "cinematic" 40 times and countless more times in posts prior to that. Now you're saying that what is screened in a cinema is "irrelevant"!?

Come on, it is quite clear that when I use the word "cinema" I mean the medium of film, not the location in which it is screened. I was just making this argument because you said that audiences don't get to choose what they watch because that is dictated by what is screened at the cinema. That isn't true today, yes there are still problems with distribution in home video and the availability of lost or rare films, but a very very large amount of films are in the hands of anyone through home video and through the internet. People can choose to watch films from any nation from any era in which films have produced and in any genre. It is no longer a matter of what they can choose, since they have countless options! Of course, marketing and general trends of public taste tend to immediately produce a false effect that there aren't many options for the public, but there are.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

But I did answer that they are better at communicating ideas and telling stories through purely visuals, most of the time. I also said that physical comedy in silent cinema is in general more accomplished than physical comedy in sound cinema. These are both opinions, but they are answers to your question.

No they're not. 1. We've already discussed that silent films did NOT attempt to communicate ideas and tell stories through "purely visuals". Unless you define the whole of film by the first few years of experimentation with capturing moving images, then telling stories through "purely visuals" is NOT film, it is some other, singular, photographic artform, rather than the multi-media artform known as "film". 2. There was indeed some very accomplished physical comedy in the silent era. In that context, let me re-phrase my question; Why do you feel that the use of sync sound, in say "Modern Times" or "City Lights" makes them less accomplished physical comedies than silent era physical comedies?

isn't it possible that Bay wanted to create highly detailed special effects because they appeal to a mainstream audience which would earn him money? I think that's a possibility, but I may be wrong.

You are wrong! Are you honestly suggesting that the ILM recommendation would not have been of the very highest commercial standards? Bay wasn't choosing between low quality cheap CGI and high quality expensive CGI, he was choosing between two different but equally high quality CGI looks. The look he wanted ended up requiring a whole load more money because it hadn't been attempted before. That was an aesthetic choice, not a "purely commercial" one. The "purely commercial" choice would have been to go with ILM's equally high quality but cheaper recommendation.

I don't think that "[maintaining] back to back high octane scenes almost throughout a film is an incredibly difficult artistic feat" is the same as "creating and maintaining pace and excitement in your target audience." The first statement shows that the filmmaker lacks skill in creating a pace that suits the film and instead resorts to keeping one note for almost the entire film. The second is a more general statement, but of course it could be that Bay's target audiences enjoy a nearly one note pace in their cinema, but in that case I'll say that they lack good judgment of what good pacing is IMO. It may even sound wrong to say such a thing, but I think that people enjoying this pacing in cinema is due to ignorance on cinema in general.

Oh dear! This is a perfect example of why I believe you would benefit from studying Bay but can't because you've decided that you don't like his films. Just sticking high octane scenes back to back would very quickly become monotonous. This monotony would lessen the impact of subsequent similarly high octane scenes which would therefore gradually appear to be less and less high octane as the film progressed. This raises an important filmmaking principle and some filmmaking problems: 1. To maintain the perception of energy and pace, the actual energy and pace has to gradually increase over time. But, if you start at high octane, how do you gradually increase, there's nowhere left to go? 2. A film which starts with high energy, which appears to gradually taper off (or even one which appears to just stay the same) is the kiss of death to audiences, they will loose interest and become bored!

For many critcs/cinephiles, I believe that's exactly what happened. They couldn't see past the weaknesses defined by their own definition of art and could only see a wall of loud monotonous explosions and CGI action. However, if Transformers had just been a wall of monotonous explosions and CGI, the general audiences around the world would have been equally as bored, well, maybe not "equally" as bored but bored nonetheless. One has to conclude that many tens of millions of film goers perceived something other than just a shallow plot and monotonous sequences of CGI action, something many critics/cinephiles were biased against and/or incapable of perceiving. As a filmmaker, one then has to ask; How did Bay achieve a perceived shape and a high pace which avoided boredom in his target audience? In other words, how did he overcome problem 1 above and avoid problem 2? Answering these questions goes to the heart of modern filmmaking!

Furthermore, it is the result of the synthesis of formal elements that matters most, and I feel that here Bay's film definitely fails. Of course this is all still my opinion but it's just the same as you having your opinion or average film goers having their own opinions.

Not really. Is Bay a failure or one of the worst filmmakers in history because he doesn't satisfy your personal definition of formal element synthesis, even though he did satisfy tens of millions of other people's requirements?

Spielberg is great at creating blockbusters because he does more than just hit us with high octane scene one after another, at least that's what I think.

How ironic. Ironic because Spielberg himself disagrees with you! You do realise that Spielberg specifically wanted Bay to direct Transformers and spent many months trying to convince him because Bay initially refused. Does this fact make you respect Bay more, or Spielberg less? I've already dealt with the "just hit us with high octane scene one after another" (because it's inaccurate) but actually Spielberg does essentially the same in the Omaha Beach sequence in Saving Private Ryan: An 18 minute sequence of pace and energy which constitutes one of the most masterful and remarkable examples of filmmaking in the last 20 years.

If I were a strict capitalist (as most of Bay's backers probably are), I would give $100m to someone who was great at making films that make money (a very commercial filmmaker like Bay) and then give them as much money as they need for subsequent projects because I want to make a profit. This is what I think the situation is with Michael Bay.

Strange, I thought you said you admired Spielberg?

... no one who wants to make money with cinema will give money to people who make great arthouse films.

I think that says more about how you define "great" or "great arthouse" than it does about those in the film industry.

.. most people within my target audience hate Michael Bay films. I think it's obvious why I can't find even one reason why I should learn from him when trying to reach my target audience.

Yes, it is very obvious!!

Also, Bay is not the only source of filmmaking knowledge on those subjects. I think that Alfred Hitchcock and Steven Spielberg are better sources on those aspects of cinema.

You think Hitchcock is better at engaging today's film goers?

Look, I'm not arguing that Bay is one of the greatest filmmakers of all time, although maybe he is but I'm not exactly in his primary target demographic either. What I'm arguing against is your statement that he's one of the worst filmmakers of all time, which he most patently is not!

But to answer your question directly, I probably won't make films like that.

Good! Hopefully you'll make films in the future which engage tomorrow's audiences but unfortunately, given your current biases, I can't see that happening.

As a cinephile, I try to embrace every kind of film ...

Either put your biases aside and actually try to appreciate/understand Bay's films or stop saying that!

Well I still wanted a recommendation so that I can overcome this inability.

No, there is no Bay film which will help you overcome your inability. There are Bay films I can recommend once you have overcome your inability but until you do there is nothing you would gain from watching any of them.

First of all, 'the public' is a very abstract concept that also changes all of the time and according to various views. The American 'public' of the 70's is much different from the American 'public' today. Also, is the 'public' limited to American audiences or to worldwide audiences in general or are there different 'publics' found in each individual national cinema?

That's exactly my point! Is it better or more "artistic" filmmaking to engage a small, like-minded demographic or to engage a large range of "publics"?

Okay I kind of agree with number 3 really, but I definitely think that someone with more experience with cinema has greater understanding of cinema as a whole. However, they usually have less understanding of cinema that appeals to more general audiences.

Again, you can't have it both ways!! The vast majority of cinema is designed to appeal to more general audiences, which critics/cinephiles "usually have less understanding of". They can't therefore have a greater understanding of the "whole" of cinema, if they have a lesser understanding of the vast majority of it! You said you didn't understand why I appeared to value the opinion of general audiences over the opinion of cinephiles/critics, this is why.

I think that general audiences have their own biases as well based both on content and what ticks me even more is that they have biases based on film form.

That's exactly my point! If someone makes a film for the biases of critics/cinephiles and not for the biases of the public, then critics/cinephiles call it art or arthouse. If someone makes a film for the biases of the public and not the biases of critics/cinephiles, then critics/cinephiles call it "not art" or bad art and insult it as commercialism or at best as technical ability rather than artistic. At least the public don't generally comment on arthouse or pretend they understand it or know more about it than the critics/cinephile for whom it was made, instead they just ignore it! I personally think that arthouse is a valuable part of the world of cinema but unfortunately it is populated by far too many pretentious snobs (or sheep who have been influenced/indoctrinated by pretentious snobs) who actually know far less about film than those whom they lambaste. If instead of trying to appear fashionable by bashing filmmakers like Bay, they made an effort to at least appreciate (if not like) what Bay is accomplishing, then it would make the arthouse world far more honest (less hypocritical), more relevant, more innovative and less plagued by self congratulatory filmmaking masturbation!

Come on, it is quite clear that when I use the word "cinema" I mean the medium of film, not the location in which it is screened.

I'm not talking about where it's screened either, I'm talking about the fact that it IS screened! Using the technology required to turn paintings into postage stamps, a Turner seascape becomes almost indistinguishable from a Manet seascape but go and see the originals and the differences are so great that it's obvious that these artists don't even belong to the same artistic movement. You can't say, for example, that an early TV episode of Star Trek is just as good "cinema" as the film Gravity, just because they don't look or sound much different when viewed on an early smartphone! OK, so this is a bit extreme but the principle is exactly the same, you are judging "cinema" and "cinema aesthetics" based on how they compare when translated to television/video!

G

 

[MiniJamesW]

No they're not. 1. We've already discussed that silent films did NOT attempt to communicate ideas and tell stories through "purely visuals". Unless you define the whole of film by the first few years of experimentation with capturing moving images, then telling stories through "purely visuals" is NOT film, it is some other, singular, photographic artform, rather than the multi-media artform known as "film". 2. There was indeed some very accomplished physical comedy in the silent era. In that context, let me re-phrase my question; Why do you feel that the use of sync sound, in say "Modern Times" or "City Lights" makes them less accomplished physical comedies than silent era physical comedies?

Okay here we don't agree because I think most silent films did indeed try to communicate ideas and tell stories primarily through visuals (though there are exceptions, my own favorite filmmaker Ozu made silent films that had lots of title cards!). Either way, just look at the Japanese masterpiece, A Page Of Madness which actually does not have any title cards, only Kubrick of the sound era of film has done quite pure visual storytelling.

I find it strange that you're trying to combat my argument about physical comedy in silent cinema by using two examples of films with the most conservative use of sync sound, which was basically making silent cinema the way it is viewed today, with a sync soundtrack but not any dialogue. Either way, I don't think two films absolutely dominate the genre as there are many more silent film classics. I'm not saying that all silent film physical comedy is better than sound film physical comedy, I just think that in general it is better and has more masterpieces.

You are wrong! Are you honestly suggesting that the ILM recommendation would not have been of the very highest commercial standards? Bay wasn't choosing between low quality cheap CGI and high quality expensive CGI, he was choosing between two different but equally high quality CGI looks. The look he wanted ended up requiring a whole load more money because it hadn't been attempted before. That was an aesthetic choice, not a "purely commercial" one. The "purely commercial" choice would have been to go with ILM's equally high quality but cheaper recommendation.

Okay then, I was wrong. But once again, this is only one artistic decision of many. There is little evidence of Bay making many artistic decisions without considering the commercial aspect of film most important to his work.

Oh dear! This is a perfect example of why I believe you would benefit from studying Bay but can't because you've decided that you don't like his films.

I didn't decide that I don't like his films, that was simply my reaction from watching them. A re-watch may change my mind but it's not like I decided my feelings about his films. I don't think you simply decided that silent film is inherently inferior to sound film (after discovering that you did indeed try to explore silent cinema).

Just sticking high octane scenes back to back would very quickly become monotonous. This monotony would lessen the impact of subsequent similarly high octane scenes which would therefore gradually appear to be less and less high octane as the film progressed. This raises an important filmmaking principle and some filmmaking problems: 1. To maintain the perception of energy and pace, the actual energy and pace has to gradually increase over time. But, if you start at high octane, how do you gradually increase, there's nowhere left to go? 2. A film which starts with high energy, which appears to gradually taper off (or even one which appears to just stay the same) is the kiss of death to audiences, they will loose interest and become bored!

Okay but I was responding to your original post. Maybe Bay indeed does make the films more and more high octane through the progression of the film. If he does then of course my argument that that sort of pacing is monotonous is irrelevant to Bay's work. I'll have to watch his films for myself to give you my stance on this, but I agree that this type of pacing is good.

For many critcs/cinephiles, I believe that's exactly what happened. They couldn't see past the weaknesses defined by their own definition of art and could only see a wall of loud monotonous explosions and CGI action. However, if Transformers had just been a wall of monotonous explosions and CGI, the general audiences around the world would have been equally as bored, well, maybe not "equally" as bored but bored nonetheless.

I agree with this, even though it does make the assumption that mainstream audiences don't appreciate monotonous pacing. Even still, I think I agree with this assumption.

One has to conclude that many tens of millions of film goers perceived something other than just a shallow plot and monotonous sequences of CGI action, something many critics/cinephiles were biased against and/or incapable of perceiving. As a filmmaker, one then has to ask; How did Bay achieve a perceived shape and a high pace which avoided boredom in his target audience? In other words, how did he overcome problem 1 above and avoid problem 2? Answering these questions goes to the heart of modern filmmaking!

Okay this is great, and I actually agree with it but it would be awesome for me to learn from Bay if I was trying to reach a similar target audience with my films. I'm not. As I stated before (which you seem to have completely left out of your response to me), every filmmaker has his/her own specialty and no filmmaker can dabble in every kind of cinema, so we have to choose some focus areas. Bay focuses on pleasing younger mainstream audiences with spectacle, special effects, high drama, and high octane scenes. That's perfectly fine, but it's not what I personally want to do as a filmmaker. And I think any attempt by me to create this kind of cinema would not be genuine (unlike Bay's films which I indeed think are genuine to an extent) therefore would be worse than anyone who is passionate about this kind of cinema.

And no, answering these questions only goes to the heart of modern mainstream filmmaking! Bay's films do not appeal to all modern audiences (including myself and others as well!). Bay does not represent all of modern filmmaking throughout the world. He only represents commercial filmmaking in the United States and blockbuster filmmaking. If I want to succeed in these areas, he is definitely my master, but I don't want to succeed in these areas, I don't even want to try. If I had a friend that wanted to be a blockbuster filmmaker today, I would tell him/her to look at Bay's work and learn from him as he is one of the masters.

Not really. Is Bay a failure or one of the worst filmmakers in history because he doesn't satisfy your personal definition of formal element synthesis, even though he did satisfy tens of millions of other people's requirements?

He is definitely not a failure, he is a huge success! However in terms of making quality films that will stand the test of time, I highly doubt that he will be considered to be a great or even a good filmmaker, I think his work is just passing fancy, and it doesn't have enough depth to even be re-discovered by critics and cinephiles in the future. Of course I may be wrong, we may continue to be celebrating Bay's work in the future and I am wrong, but I highly doubt it.

How ironic. Ironic because Spielberg himself disagrees with you! You do realise that Spielberg specifically wanted Bay to direct Transformers and spent many months trying to convince him because Bay initially refused. Does this fact make you respect Bay more, or Spielberg less?

It makes me respect Spielberg less and Bay less as well. I wish Bay would give us more original blockbuster films, I think one of the worst problems of blockbusters today is that they are all either based on cartoons or comics. I wish it would be like in the 80's and late 70's when we had Jaws, Indiana Jones, Star Wars, and many other films adding to film lore, not recycling old ideas. I'm not a blind follower of Spielberg, I think he is one of the most talented filmmakers that didn't fully realize his potential with most of his projects. But his best work is amazing and should be celebrated in my opinion. I think Spielberg is a more natural master with gifts comparable to the Old Hollywood filmmakers, but I don't think he's a great cinematic thinker. Just like John Ford, I think John Ford is one of the greatest filmmakers of all-time but he's not a great cinematic thinker. Spielberg suffers from the same obsession with commercialism that Bay suffers from, however, he did create great films that should be celebrated. For me, this aspect of Spielberg does not merit respect, and I wish Spielberg would encourage current blockbuster filmmakers to create more original blockbusters for us rather than recycling ideas.

I've already dealt with the "just hit us with high octane scene one after another" (because it's inaccurate) but actually Spielberg does essentially the same in the Omaha Beach sequence in Saving Private Ryan: An 18 minute sequence of pace and energy which constitutes one of the most masterful and remarkable examples of filmmaking in the last 20 years.

Yes but that was 18 minutes of an entire film. There are definitely different types of scenes in Saving Private Ryan. I am not against high octane scenes, I am against having a monotonous pace any film in any kind.

Strange, I thought you said you admired Spielberg?

I do admire Spielberg, he's a great gift to cinema. He has made many mistakes but that doesn't detract from his successes.

I think that says more about how you define "great" or "great arthouse" than it does about those in the film industry.

No, it really doesn't. I should have eliminated the word "great" from my original post because it isn't limited to "great arthouse" films, it's all arthouse films that don't get funded for commercial reasons. Arthouse films aim at smaller audiences therefore make less money. If I am trying to make a lot of money, I wouldn't invest in arthouse films. I even mentioned to you how this can be observed by looking at who actually funds these films, they are usually people associated with an arts or culture organization or government that is seeking to fund artistic cinematic projects that won't necessarily make a lot of money. There are exceptions to this rule, but generally arthouse films aren't funded by people with high commercial aspirations for the films they fund (if you have a good argument about this, give it to me but don't start saying that this is my opinion because it is OBSERVABLE!).

Yes, it is very obvious!!

Then why all the disagreement in the first place?

You think Hitchcock is better at engaging today's film goers?

No and that's not what I was replying to. I was saying that he is better at creating 'tension' and 'high drama.' I wasn't talking about today's film goers at all. If you want to say that today's film goers have more understanding of these concepts then go ahead, but I didn't even try to imply what was stated above.

Look, I'm not arguing that Bay is one of the greatest filmmakers of all time, although maybe he is but I'm not exactly in his primary target demographic either. What I'm arguing against is your statement that he's one of the worst filmmakers of all time, which he most patently is not!

But I've already said that Bay is definitely not one of the worst filmmakers of all time. He's simply one of the filmmakers that I personally like the least! I said this in one of my posts:
"Now, if we start to discuss his merits as a filmmaker with a more 'objective' view, I would have to say that he is DEFINITELY NOT the worst filmmaker of all-time"
I also said this:
"I also know that Bay has some level of talent and puts a lot of effort into his films. If we're talking about a more 'objective' view of cinema, I would have to conclude that Bay isn't the worst filmmaker of all-time, but that he is still not a good filmmaker."
It is only in my personally acknowledged subjective point of view that Bay ranks lowest because I don't personally like his films or his ideal vision for cinema as demonstrated by his work. But there are many many many worse filmmakers than Michael Bay (including myself) and even if we're just talking about professional filmmakers there are many worse filmmakers, and I'm sure that if I saw their films I would dislike their work even more than Michael Bay's work.

Good! Hopefully you'll make films in the future which engage tomorrow's audiences but unfortunately, given your current biases, I can't see that happening.

Once again, this is assuming that there is one audience. There is not! There are audiences that embrace mainstream films, audiences that embrace primarily arthouse or foreign films, audiences that embrace both, audiences that only watch very few movies at all, there are tons of audiences. I personally recognize that the films I want to create won't appeal to very large audiences, they will probably only appeal to audiences of the size that my favorite filmmakers today have. I am content with this because I don't make films to appeal to everyone nor do I want to make films that necessarily make a lot of money. The mainstream audience taste is irrelevant to me as a filmmaker unless someday I want to make a mainstream film (which I highly doubt, just like you do!).

Either put your biases aside and actually try to appreciate/understand Bay's films or stop saying that!

Bay is one filmmaker, I'm not dismissing the entire genre he works in. I even gave examples of recent blockbusters that I did enjoy! I try to appreciate every type of film (and even then, I never said that I succeeded, I say I only TRY!), not every filmmaker's work!

No, there is no Bay film which will help you overcome your inability. There are Bay films I can recommend once you have overcome your inability but until you do there is nothing you would gain from watching any of them.

Ah well, I guess you really don't want to help me then. If there's no Bay film that will help me overcome my inability, then how do I overcome my inability?

That's exactly my point! Is it better or more "artistic" filmmaking to engage a small, like-minded demographic or to engage a large range of "publics"?

I don't know. I think both can have a lot value if the works truly are great and stand the test of time. There are works in both categories that have stood the test of time and are celebrated as classics in general or within their specific category. There will be classics that fit in both of these categories and other categories that appeal to a small range of "publics," I don't think that Bay's films will stand the test of time. I might be wrong about this though. I don't think we should judge a film by its target audience because it is even impossible for most films to engage a large range of "publics" due to the lack of marketing, distribution, etc. Let's look at the films and how they speak to us or move us or engage us, not on how many people were "engaged" by a film (box-office doesn't even tell us if the viewers liked the film or to what degree they liked the film).

Again, you can't have it both ways!! The vast majority of cinema is designed to appeal to more general audiences, which critics/cinephiles "usually have less understanding of". They can't therefore have a greater understanding of the "whole" of cinema, if they have a lesser understanding of the vast majority of it! You said you didn't understand why I appeared to value the opinion of general audiences over the opinion of cinephiles/critics, this is why.

Okay, here I think you are wrong. A film critic can know more about cinema as a whole even if they lack understanding on what general audiences are looking for in films today because there is a lot more to cinema than that. Cinema has a large history and there are films from many nations that a critic may know about, this understanding is greater than only understanding what general audiences are looking for, because what general audiences are looking for is much more narrow and much less in quantity. I don't think that what is designed to appeal to general audiences is the majority (today), that's not true if you look at the fact that most general audiences today only look at films from a short time range and they don't look at films made in non-English languages! If we want to know the quality of a film based on the general audiences' view of what good cinema is, then of course there view is more valid! But as a non-commercial filmmaker and cinephile, I am not interested in this. Maybe you are a commercial filmmaker, in that case, I would say that you're definitely doing the right thing!

That's exactly my point! If someone makes a film for the biases of critics/cinephiles and not for the biases of the public, then critics/cinephiles call it art or arthouse. If someone makes a film for the biases of the public and not the biases of critics/cinephiles, then critics/cinephiles call it "not art" or bad art and insult it as commercialism or at best as technical ability rather than artistic.

Not necessarily true considering the fact that it was studio films that made people view films as art with the rise of the 'auteur' theory in France. Many non-arthouse filmmakers are still appreciated by critics such as the Coen Brothers, P.T. Anderson, Wes Anderson, Steve McQueen, Quentin Tarantino, James Cameron, Steven Spielberg, Pixar, and many others.

At least the public don't generally comment on arthouse or pretend they understand it or know more about it than the critics/cinephile for whom it was made, instead they just ignore it!

I don't think ignoring it is very good, and many people do have the perception that all arthouse cinema is "boring" and "pretentious." I think it is important for critics not to automatically dismiss all mainstream films either, but I don't think that's the case. They do have a tendency to undervalue genre films (this is nothing new though) and I think this should be changed.

I personally think that arthouse is a valuable part of the world of cinema but unfortunately it is populated by far too many pretentious snobs (or sheep who have been influenced/indoctrinated by pretentious snobs) who actually know far less about film than those whom they lambaste.

Wow before I read this, I wrote about people calling arthouse cinema "pretentious" above haha.
I actually agree with this, there are many snobs who won't even watch genre films (even from the Old Hollywood days), there are others who seem to only watch non-American films. It's really unfortunate, but I think these people are just as narrow-minded in their taste as mainstream audiences in their wholesale rejection of silent cinema, black & white cinema, foreign cinema, and arthouse cinema. At the same time though, I think these "pretentious snobs" are even worse because they claim to be cinephiles (and quite frankly, I think they should know better). The very Godard and New Wave filmmakers they worship are the guys who worshiped genre films of the past! These snobs really are ignorant!

Just out of curiosity, do you think I'm a "pretentious snob"?

 

[MiniJamesW]

If instead of trying to appear fashionable by bashing filmmakers like Bay, they made an effort to at least appreciate (if not like) what Bay is accomplishing, then it would make the arthouse world far more honest (less hypocritical), more relevant, more innovative and less plagued by self congratulatory filmmaking masturbation!

Can you give me examples of "self congratulatory filmmaking masturbation" that are successful within the arthouse? I'm sure there are some, but I think most of those films end up being trashed and not remembered.

I think it is important for us to appreciate all cinema, that is why I'm even having this discussion with you so that I can appreciate Bay for what he is. For me, he doesn't match up even to the best within the blockbuster genre, even if we're talking about films made in recent years! I think he's very good at engaging mainstream audiences but that his films won't be remembered as being great unlike other blockbusters and other popular films. I'm open to being wrong and actually I'm hoping that I am wrong because I prefer liking a film to disliking a film!

I hope you don't see me as one of those fashionable arthouse snobs, because I don't reject genre filmmaking or even blockbuster filmmaking. I simply think there are better examples of this kind of cinema.

I'm not talking about where it's screened either, I'm talking about the fact that it IS screened! Using the technology required to turn paintings into postage stamps, a Turner seascape becomes almost indistinguishable from a Manet seascape but go and see the originals and the differences are so great that it's obvious that these artists don't even belong to the same artistic movement. You can't say, for example, that an early TV episode of Star Trek is just as good "cinema" as the film Gravity, just because they don't look or sound much different when viewed on an early smartphone! OK, so this is a bit extreme but the principle is exactly the same, you are judging "cinema" and "cinema aesthetics" based on how they compare when translated to television/video!

I agree with this, but due to practicality most people have to settle for home video or streaming. We all have our own opinions on this, but I'm fine with watching most films on home video at the highest quality available on a big screen TV with a sound system. I think that viewing films on a smartphone or tablet is almost always unacceptable (the only times I accept it is if literally the only copy that is available can only be found as a low res video on YouTube, and even then with films like A Brighter Summer Day, I prefer to wait and pray that the film is restored and released within my lifetime!). There is no way for me to see every film that I want to on the big screen for many obvious reasons, and this is the case with most people. I always try to re-watch my favorite films on the big screen and watch films I haven't seen that I'm interested on the big screen, but it simply isn't always possible. I don't think films can only be judged when watching them on the big screen because they can still impact the viewer in different ways. We all have different opinions on this though, so I don't think either one of us should argue that our views are authoritative on this matter. For me, the big screen is always ideal but not necessary if there is a good approximation like a home theater system, at the same time I feel that tablets and smartphones are an unacceptable way to viewing films properly.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

Okay here we don't agree because I think most silent films did indeed try to communicate ideas and tell stories primarily through visuals ...

I still think this is debatable for the vast majority of the great silent films but telling stories "primarily" through visuals represents a significant change in your (and the OP's) argument from telling stories "purely" through visuals!

... only Kubrick of the sound era of film has done quite pure visual storytelling.

We've dealt with Welles and now you mention Kubrik. Are you going to describe any more of the directors who have contributed the most to the development of film sound design in terms of "pure visual storytelling"?

I find it strange that you're trying to combat my argument about physical comedy in silent cinema by using two examples of films with the most conservative use of sync sound, which was basically making silent cinema the way it is viewed today, with a sync soundtrack but not any dialogue. Either way, I don't think two films absolutely dominate the genre as there are many more silent film classics.

I never said those two films dominate the genre or are even necessarily the best. However, Chaplin was one of the most successful and greatest proponents of physical comedies and his work spans the both the silent and sound eras. The films I listed were just two examples which I do not feel are poorer physical comedies because they are sound films.

I'm not saying that all silent film physical comedy is better than sound film physical comedy, I just think that in general it is better and has more masterpieces.

You seem to be missing the "elephant in the room" though, that the addition of dialogue allows for more sophisticated comedy and therefore physical comedy becomes only one possible element of a comedy film rather than the only or central element due to the limitations of the media. It's a bit like saying that no one has produced a better 35mm linear film editing machine since digital NLEs took over by the end of the 90s.

Okay then, I was wrong. But once again, this is only one artistic decision of many. There is little evidence of Bay making many artistic decisions without considering the commercial aspect of film most important to his work.

So now you are saying "little" evidence rather than "no" evidence. In other words, you saw no evidence of artistic decisions until I gave you one example. How many other examples of artistic decisions might there be that you misinterpreted or failed to see? Just because you can't identify artist decisions does not mean there is no or even little evidence for them, it just means that you personally cannot identify/appreciate that evidence! I feel like we're starting to go round in circles now, as I'm saying the same things to you now as I did to start with.

Maybe Bay indeed does make the films more and more high octane through the progression of the film. If he does then of course my argument that that sort of pacing is monotonous is irrelevant to Bay's work. I'll have to watch his films for myself to give you my stance on this, but I agree that this type of pacing is good.

OK, that's a step in the right direction but there's another step, a step of particular concern to filmmakers: If one starts (or quickly arrives) at the highest pace, how can one progress from there? There is nowhere to progress to except the same or a lower pace. Answering this question goes to the heart of how audiences perceive filmmaking pace and shape.

Okay this is great, and I actually agree with it but it would be awesome for me to learn from Bay if I was trying to reach a similar target audience with my films. I'm not.

As I've just said, identifying, understanding and appreciating what Bay is trying to accomplish and how he overcomes the inherent filmmaking problems and accomplishes it, goes to the heart of how modern audiences perceive filmmaking shape and pace. In other words, there are certainly things one can learn/gain about underlying filmmaking principles besides the obvious specific execution of high octane teenage blockbusters. This is why I asked you previously when you raised this point if you never wanted to make a film with shape, pace, tension or excitement.

I think his work is just passing fancy, and it doesn't have enough depth to even be re-discovered by critics and cinephiles in the future.

Possibly, who knows though, maybe critics and cinephiles in the future will have a wider and better understanding of film? Let's not forget that Bay's main target demographic is today's teenagers, who are tomorrow's critics and cinephiles!

I wish Bay would give us more original blockbuster films ... I wish Spielberg would encourage current blockbuster filmmakers to create more original blockbusters for us rather than recycling ideas.

I don't think you understand what modern blockbusters are, how and why they are made/funded.

Yes but that was 18 minutes of an entire film ... I am against having a monotonous pace any film in any kind.

You try creating 18 minutes of high octane action (or low octane drama for that matter) without it appearing monotonous.

I do admire Spielberg, he's a great gift to cinema. He has made many mistakes but that doesn't detract from his successes.

I would say that a defining feature of Spielberg is how few mistakes he's made relative to the amount of his output.

I should have eliminated the word "great" from my original post because it isn't limited to "great arthouse" films, it's all arthouse films that don't get funded for commercial reasons. Arthouse films aim at smaller audiences therefore make less money. If I am trying to make a lot of money, I wouldn't invest in arthouse films.

If one were trying to make a lot of money, one probably wouldn't invest in any kind of film!

I was saying that he [Hitchcock} is better at creating 'tension' and 'high drama.' I wasn't talking about today's film goers at all.

In which case you can't say that Hitchcock is better at creating 'tension' and 'high drama'. He might be better for you personally and there's no doubt he was a master at these filmmaking elements for the audiences of his day.

If you want to say that today's film goers have more understanding of these concepts then go ahead...

Today's film goers are more engaged by the implementation of tension and high drama of today's most successful filmmakers.

Once again, this is assuming that there is one audience. There is not! There are audiences that embrace mainstream films, audiences that embrace primarily arthouse or foreign films, audiences that embrace both, audiences that only watch very few movies at all, there are tons of audiences.

No, it's not assuming there is just one audience, that's why I specifically said "tomorrow's audiences" rather than tomorrow's audience. With the possible exception of a small part of the already tiny critic/cinephile audience, all audiences and their expectations evolve over time.

If there's no Bay film that will help me overcome my inability, then how do I overcome my inability?

From everything you've said, you don't want to overcome your inability to appreciate the artistry in Bay's films. What you appear to want is a Bay film which conforms to your definition of good art, so that you can overcome your inability appreciate him. But, none of Bay's films conform to your definition of art and therefore there is no Bay film which can overcome your inability. So, I don't know how you overcome your inability without changing your definition or at least gaining the ability to appreciate what is outside of your definition.

Let's look at the films and how they speak to us or move us or engage us, not on how many people were "engaged" by a film.

As filmmakers, what "speaks to" or "engages" us is or should be irrelevant. As a professional filmmaker my job is not to "speak to" or engage myself, it's to "speak to" and engage the audience/s! The number of people engaged by the film is therefore an indicator of how well I've done my job. You asked me to name some examples of "self congratulatory filmmaking masturbation", I think maybe you can think of some yourself. Just look for films where the filmmakers have put more effort into and have been more successful at gratifying themselves than a wider audience.

... box-office doesn't even tell us if the viewers liked the film or to what degree they liked the film

It does to a degree. Take for example Transformers III, even allowing for inflation very few films achieve $1.1b at the box-office. To achieve those kinds of numbers requires that a very significant number of people liked it enough to recommend it.

A film critic can know more about cinema as a whole even if they lack understanding on what general audiences are looking for in films today because there is a lot more to cinema than that.

You can't talk about understanding the whole of cinema while not understanding a huge part of today's cinema.

I don't think ignoring it is very good, and many people do have the perception that all arthouse cinema is "boring" and "pretentious."

I don't think it's very good either. However, my contention is that this is the fault of arthouse filmmakers themselves rather than the fault of the public for not being more "educated".

Just out of curiosity, do you think I'm a "pretentious snob"?

No but you do occasionally come across as one of those narrow-minded cinephiles you've stated you hate. You appear to have some very black and white views in some areas which you seem to feel are a result of a better or more informed understanding. A good example of this is your view and use of the word "commercial" or "commercialism" which appears rather narrow and naive.

For me, the big screen is always ideal but not necessary if there is a good approximation like a home theater system ...

For me, it depends on the film and the quality of the home cinema system. A newer film which pushes the latest technology as part of it's story telling is going to suffer more on a home cinema system relative to an older film.

G

 

[MiniJamesW]

I still think this is debatable for the vast majority of the great silent films but telling stories "primarily" through visuals represents a significant change in your (and the OP's) argument from telling stories "purely" through visuals!

I think it is pretty much not debatable at all that the vast majority of great silent films tell stories primarily through visuals because they are primarily composed of visuals for the most part. There are much more visual sections of silent films than title cards, and the music and sound effects are rarely used to push the story forward. I didn't mean that silent films told stories purely through visuals but that they were closer to achieving this than sound films (whether or not this is worth accomplishing is another matter entirely, but that's up to each person's own opinion).

We've dealt with Welles and now you mention Kubrik. Are you going to describe any more of the directors who have contributed the most to the development of film sound design in terms of "pure visual storytelling"?

The reason I mentioned Kubrick is for a few reasons. First of all, his personal opinion about cinema.

"I think that silent films got a lot more things right than talkies." - Stanley Kubrick

Kubrick's entire conception of filmmaking was based on what silent cinema developed, his only concern is bringing this type of visual storytelling to his era which meant including sound. You may argue otherwise but many critics and Kubrick himself would say that his films were made more in the tradition of silent films than most sound films. You can debate this, but I think it's quite evident that a film like 2001: A Space Odyssey would have made just as much sense with just visuals and some use of title cards. Many interviews show Kubrick's admiration for silent cinema and its techniques and how they should be continued to be employed in order to create great cinema. I don't even entirely agree with his point of view, but I can't deny that his films are the closest to silent cinema that we have seen in the sound era (apart from the two Chaplin films and The Artist which are technically sound films even though they are aesthetically silent films).

I never said those two films dominate the genre or are even necessarily the best. However, Chaplin was one of the most successful and greatest proponents of physical comedies and his work spans the both the silent and sound eras. The films I listed were just two examples which I do not feel are poorer physical comedies because they are sound films.

But my point was that even though they are technically sound films, they are not sound films aesthetically speaking. Using these as an example to defend physical comedy in sound cinema is an attempt to grasp at something that is almost irrelevant because the sound in these films is no different than the live sound performed when silent films were screened. That's just my opinion though.

You seem to be missing the "elephant in the room" though, that the addition of dialogue allows for more sophisticated comedy and therefore physical comedy becomes only one possible element of a comedy film rather than the only or central element due to the limitations of the media. It's a bit like saying that no one has produced a better 35mm linear film editing machine since digital NLEs took over by the end of the 90s.

But these films still hold up and I think more great ones can continue to be made. I don't think the introduction of a new genre should automatically eliminate the possibility of another, nor should the other genre lose validity. I think some great physical comedy was created in the Hong Kong cinema of the 80's and 90's, most evidently in the films of Jackie Chan, Sammo Hung, and other martial arts comedians. However, I also see this in films like Tsui Hark's Shanghai Blues which has a great scene with very elaborate use of staging to create physical comedy. However, as a whole I think silent cinema did a better job at developing physical comedy. I wish more great physical comedy was done with sound, but I think filmmakers often resort to using dialogue to create comedy now that sound is available. Potentially, there can be more great physical comedy with sound cinema, but I think the limitations of silent cinema increased the development of creative physical comedy in cinema.

So now you are saying "little" evidence rather than "no" evidence. In other words, you saw no evidence of artistic decisions until I gave you one example. How many other examples of artistic decisions might there be that you misinterpreted or failed to see? Just because you can't identify artist decisions does not mean there is no or even little evidence for them, it just means that you personally cannot identify/appreciate that evidence! I feel like we're starting to go round in circles now, as I'm saying the same things to you now as I did to start with.

I don't think I ever said that there was no evidence of artistic decisions in Michael Bay's work but I may have implied it. If I did, then I made a mistake.

If there are other ones, I would like them to be pointed out, but in any case I doubt they are on the level of greater filmmakers even within his genre.

The thing is, right now in terms of critical opinion of Michael Bay's work, I am not in the minority. Critics, cinephiles, and I may very possibly be wrong, but in that case we have to see compelling evidence. The French New Wave critics pointed to the artistry of Hollywood films by making films inspired by them and by writing essays about them. I suggest that anyone who wants to make a case for Michael Bay's greatness as a filmmaker, they should write essays about him and even make films inspired by his work. I know that some are already doing this, these people are called vulgar auteurists. So far their ideas aren't considered to be entirely credible but they are doing good work. At the same time I think that vulgar auteurists should attempt to appeal to a new appreciation of cinema, and not try to make the "vulgar auteurs" seem valuable in the terms of how the critical establishment evaluates films (which I think is something that you are suggesting that I do, gain an appreciation for a different type of cinema that I don't currently appreciate).

OK, that's a step in the right direction but there's another step, a step of particular concern to filmmakers: If one starts (or quickly arrives) at the highest pace, how can one progress from there? There is nowhere to progress to except the same or a lower pace. Answering this question goes to the heart of how audiences perceive filmmaking pace and shape.

I see, and I think that a filmmaker that achieves this has done good work. I'll have to watch Bay's films myself to see if they achieve this (in my opinion of course).

As I've just said, identifying, understanding and appreciating what Bay is trying to accomplish and how he overcomes the inherent filmmaking problems and accomplishes it, goes to the heart of how modern audiences perceive filmmaking shape and pace. In other words, there are certainly things one can learn/gain about underlying filmmaking principles besides the obvious specific execution of high octane teenage blockbusters. This is why I asked you previously when you raised this point if you never wanted to make a film with shape, pace, tension or excitement.

I think you should eliminate pace and shape from that list, because there are different types of pace and shape. But yeah, if I want to make a film with a similar shape or pace, which are essentially shapes and paces that appeal to current mainstream audiences, then yes I should study Bay's work. With tension and excitement, Bay is one of the masters of creating this that appeals mainstream audiences as well. I think that I can still study Bay's films to learn from them, but when making the films that I want to make, this knowledge probably won't be very useful. I like studying films anyway, so I may study Bay's films but I don't think it will affect my filmmaking process. Werner Herzog says he watches every month's biggest hit just to see what mainstream audiences respond to and watch, but I think it's pretty evident that those films don't directly influence Herzog's approach and the films he makes.

Possibly, who knows though, maybe critics and cinephiles in the future will have a wider and better understanding of film? Let's not forget that Bay's main target demographic is today's teenagers, who are tomorrow's critics and cinephiles!

That's assuming that appreciating Bay's films is a "wider" and "better" understanding of film. I'm not sure if you have this belief, that current tastes and ideas are superior to previous ones but I think that this is a flawed belief. This is also assuming that Bay is even considered to be a great filmmaker by his target demographic. And it's also assuming that Bay's demographic will continue to view him as a great filmmaker as they grow up (assuming that they think he's a great filmmaker in the first place). I will tell you that I was a fan of Transformers but now I don't think it's a great film. I never liked the subsequent Transformers films though.

If we look at how his films are evaluated on websites like IMDb (which is a populist website as opposed to MUBI or Letterboxd or other sites) we can see that people like his films but they don't think they are masterpieces or even great cinema.

Bad Boys - 6.8/10
The Rock - 7.4/10
Armageddon - 6.6/10
Pearl Harbor - 5.9/10
Bad Boys II - 6.5/10
The Island - 6.5/10
Transformers - 7.2/10
Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen - 6.0/10
Transformers: Dark Of The Moon - 6.4/10
Pain & Gain - 6.5/10
Transformers: Age Of Extinction - 6.3/10
Michael Bay's overall average: 6.6/10

Michael Bay is hardly considered to be even a very good filmmaker within populist ratings let alone a great one. I know that the people rating these films on IMDb are not all within Bay's demographic, but if you compare these ratings with Nolan, Tarantino, or even the recent Fast & Furious films, Mission: Impossible films, Marvel comics films, and James Bond films, Bay's films don't seem to be considered to be great mainstream films. And I want to make it clear that this has always been my argument. It's not that mainstream films, "commercial" films, and blockbusters are all garbage. It is that Michael Bay's films are not great examples of these kinds of films (his extremely commercial approach to film only irritates me even more, but I recognize that this is just a personal bias).

I don't think you understand what modern blockbusters are, how and why they are made/funded.

Maybe you're right but I think I understand that modern blockbusters are films are made by filmmakers with few artistic aspirations, and they are made to make as much money as possible (particularly in the opening week at the box-office). I like a lot of blockbusters, unfortunately many blockbusters like the Transformers are made with an established name/franchise which I think is a shame because we can create new blockbuster films that have at least some originality. I recognize that adaptations have always been a valid form of cinema, both in mainstream films and in art films, but I think that today there are too many sequels and cartoon/comic book adaptations being released which I think is not ideal because they are obviously capitalizing on the name to make money rather than trying to make something great that continues a franchise. Some of these films are actually really good in my opinion, but Bay's in particular seem like shameless cash-ins (again, in my opinion) and are not satisfying as films unlike some of these sequels and adaptations. And even though I think there are some really good sequels and adaptations, I wish that mainstream directors try to create new worlds, characters, and stories to engage viewers in something new.

You try creating 18 minutes of high octane action (or low octane drama for that matter) without it appearing monotonous.

The fact that something is difficult does not make it good, and either way I didn't complain about 18 miutes of high octane, in fact I was complaining about making a whole film of monotonous high octane action, but then you clarified your view on Bay's pacing, and I said you may be right, I'll have to re-watch Bay's films to assess his pacing.

I would say that a defining feature of Spielberg is how few mistakes he's made relative to the amount of his output.

As I said, I think more of his mistakes have to do with the way he talks about cinema. He's not Martin Scorsese, he's naturally cinematically literate but he's hardly intellectual about his work or cinema as a whole. He has made less mistakes than relative to the amount of his output, but he has so much output that I would still say he has made many mistakes.

If one were trying to make a lot of money, one probably wouldn't invest in any kind of film!

Probably, but I don't see how this refutes the fact that blockbuster films like those made by Michael Bay are funded more for profit reasons than arthouse films because arthouse films always (maybe there is one exception but I've never heard of it) make less money than blockbuster films.

In which case you can't say that Hitchcock is better at creating 'tension' and 'high drama'. He might be better for you personally and there's no doubt he was a master at these filmmaking elements for the audiences of his day.

No, Hitchcock is still a master at these things, and I'm not sure that's disputable as his films have stood the test of time and influenced countless filmmakers (and will continue to influence them). In my opinion, a master always remains a master (unless someone who was perceived to be a master was never a master at all). If Bay's films stand the test of time and his films continue to be loved by audiences and studied and considered to be artistic masterpieces, then he can be considered to be as good as Hitchcock at creating tension and high drama and suspense. For now, I think there is little evidence that supports the view that Bay is a greater filmmaker than Alfred Hitchcock, even at these elements (since they are the ones that Hitchcock specialized in).

Today's film goers are more engaged by the implementation of tension and high drama of today's most successful filmmakers.

That doesn't necessarily make them better.

No, it's not assuming there is just one audience, that's why I specifically said "tomorrow's audiences" rather than tomorrow's audience. With the possible exception of a small part of the already tiny critic/cinephile audience, all audiences and their expectations evolve over time.

Yet there are still films that are celebrated today even after several decades that they were released. There are always trends within every audience, but trends don't reveal greatness. Greatness (in a more objective sense, not in the way that I call films 'great') is only revealed by the test of time. There is an audience for the kind of films I want to make because there is an audience for the contemporary filmmakers that directly inspire me. Whether I succeed or not has to do with my talent and my skill as a filmmaker and how I try to reach my audience, but that doesn't mean that the films that I want to make are inherently alienating to all audiences. My audience will not be large in comparison to mainstream films, but I know that and I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

From everything you've said, you don't want to overcome your inability to appreciate the artistry in Bay's films. What you appear to want is a Bay film which conforms to your definition of good art, so that you can overcome your inability appreciate him. But, none of Bay's films conform to your definition of art and therefore there is no Bay film which can overcome your inability. So, I don't know how you overcome your inability without changing your definition or at least gaining the ability to appreciate what is outside of your definition.

I actually now understand more why you don't want to help me. But the major point that I still want to make is that I don't reject the kind of films Bay makes, I simply think he's not good at making the films he is trying to make. I've mentioned examples of films that I (and not only me, most popular audiences) consider to be superior within the method of filmmaking Michael Bay is working in. I don't think the genre and style Bay is working in is without great merit, I simply think Bay is not achieving the potential of his genre and style. If you still think I should expand my definition of good art, well then why stop there? Why shouldn't we expand our definitions of good art to encompass the words of Ed Wood, Santa Claus Conquers The Martians, Space Jam, The Room, and any and every film existing regardless of what qualities they appear to have to us now. This is what I can't agree with, that I am narrow minded for not liking Bay's films. I think I would be narrow minded if I hated Bay and every other contemporary blockbuster film, but the fact is that I don't. It's similar to the way that I don't think that someone is narrow minded if they hate John Ford. But if they hate every single Western, well I think that's a pretty narrow minded view.

 

[MiniJamesW]

As filmmakers, what "speaks to" or "engages" us is or should be irrelevant. As a professional filmmaker my job is not to "speak to" or engage myself, it's to "speak to" and engage the audience/s! The number of people engaged by the film is therefore an indicator of how well I've done my job. You asked me to name some examples of "self congratulatory filmmaking masturbation", I think maybe you can think of some yourself. Just look for films where the filmmakers have put more effort into and have been more successful at gratifying themselves than a wider audience.

You have to speak genuinely though, and that means making films your own. I'm not alone in this view, the auteurist critics and nearly every art filmmaker feels this way. So do commercial filmmakers, Frank Capra always emphasized the fact that filmmakers should make what they WANT to make and follow their own ideas. Even current commercial filmmakers like Brad Bird feel this way:

“We make films that we ourselves would want to see and then hope that other people would want to see it. If you try to analyze audiences or think there's some sophisticated recipe for success, then I think you are doomed. You're making it too complicated.” - Brad Bird

I'm not going to make films that I don't want to make. I'm not going to make action films just because they are popular, if I love action films I will make them with a genuine approach and will be more able to create something unique. Of course the world is not ideal and so sometimes we have to make films that we don't really want to, but we should always try to make films our own.

Well "self congratulatory filmmaking masturbation" is very subjective. Perhaps to you Abbas Kiarostami, Jean-Luc Godard, Andrei Tarkovsky, and Yasujiro Ozu make filmmaking masturbation but I don't think so (and these men make films which are very unique and they are very personal in their approach). I think that many film school students make filmmaking masturbation, and I myself am guilty of starting projects that are filmmaking masturbation. But I really can't think of one highly acclaimed director that makes filmmaking masturbation, but perhaps there are some in your view, and perhaps I haven't watched their works yet.

It does to a degree. Take for example Transformers III, even allowing for inflation very few films achieve $1.1b at the box-office. To achieve those kinds of numbers requires that a very significant number of people liked it enough to recommend it.

Yeah and also the fact that it is a sequel shows that people who viewed the first films enjoy them enough to want to see the third installment. However, as pointed out before, I think it's not a good indicator of the degree of how much people like it. Populist online ratings show that people like Bay's films but don't necessarily think they are very good films or great films or masterpieces.

You can't talk about understanding the whole of cinema while not understanding a huge part of today's cinema.

Yes but I never said anyone understands the whole of cinema, I said that critics understand MORE OF THE WHOLE OF CINEMA than mainstream audiences, and this is not really debatable at this point in time (unless critics change or mainstream audiences change their viewing habits).

I don't think it's very good either. However, my contention is that this is the fault of arthouse filmmakers themselves rather than the fault of the public for not being more "educated".

I disagree, mainstream audiences have many preconceptions about these films. There is also the fact that most mainstream audiences are not as visually literate as critics and filmmakers. Nor are they willing to engage in more complex forms of expression. The problem of the arthouse film is the same as the problem with classical music, fine art, and fine literature. Most people do not want to engage in more complex or sophisticated forms of art. I don't think this is anyone's fault really, people who work in these "finer" forms of art have to recognize that they are not going to appeal to a lot of people and accept this fact. I think it would be stupid for me to say "the public is so stupid for not watching Ozu films and instead choose to watch blockbusters" because the film was not designed to reach today's mainstream audience unlike current blockbusters.

No but you do occasionally come across as one of those narrow-minded cinephiles you've stated you hate. You appear to have some very black and white views in some areas which you seem to feel are a result of a better or more informed understanding. A good example of this is your view and use of the word "commercial" or "commercialism" which appears rather narrow and naive.

Ah, I see. I do hate that narrow-minded cinephilia because they claim to love cinema while limiting it to only one type of cinema. At the same time they not only say they dislike the "other" type of cinema (this other type depends on the individual snob) but they also are actually ignorant of that "other" type of cinema while making comments about it. I try to only talk about cinema that I know, and if a film does not interest me I usually say "I'm just not interested in that film right now, but I may come around to it if it sparks my interest."

We all have our flaws of course. I sometimes simplify things for the sake of communicating quickly (even though my posts always end up long anyway!), but I actually have more nuanced views than I sometimes communicate. Perhaps the way I view commercial cinema and commercialism in cinema is narrow and naive, because yes commercialism is involved in nearly every film ever made anyway. But when I mention these terms I am talking about films made primarily for commercial purposes, and I actually don't even care if films are made for primarily commercial purposes unless they affect the artistic decisions of the filmmakers in a negative way (and I feel that this is true of Bay's films and other blockbuster films). I think I am more informed than the average viewer, but at the same time I am not more informed about the average viewer's perception of cinema than the average viewer. At the same time there are many many many people who are more informed about cinema than I am, but it isn't really a contest. I just want to learn as much as I can about cinema! I do think that a lot of cinematic opinion has to do with how well-informed the person is. I value a person's opinion if they have watched a lot more cinema and explored a variety of cinema. Maybe you think this view is wrong, but I tend to value the opinions of experts of any area more than a layman. But even this is somewhat of a simplification of my views on the matter.

For me, it depends on the film and the quality of the home cinema system. A newer film which pushes the latest technology as part of it's story telling is going to suffer more on a home cinema system relative to an older film.

Yeah I agree with this. I tend to watch more older films so it doesn't affect me as much, but I basically only watch newer films at the movie theater for this reason.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

“We make films that we ourselves would want to see and then hope that other people would want to see it. If you try to analyze audiences or think there's some sophisticated recipe for success, then I think you are doomed. You're making it too complicated.” - Brad Bird

You are taking a "sound bite" and trying to turn it into a universal filmmaking truth. This statement is not true or rather, it's not entirely true.

You appear to have a very a black and white, idealistic view of filmmaking. If I respond in full to your previous points I think we'll largely be going around in circles, maybe with different examples and different explanations but circles nonetheless. As the old saying goes, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. So I'll leave it where it is and wish you the best of luck in your future film making.

G

 

[MiniJamesW]

You are taking a "sound bite" and trying to turn it into a universal filmmaking truth. This statement is not true or rather, it's not entirely true.

You appear to have a very a black and white, idealistic view of filmmaking. If I respond in full to your previous points I think we'll largely be going around in circles, maybe with different examples and different explanations but circles nonetheless. As the old saying goes, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. So I'll leave it where it is and wish you the best of luck in your future film making.

G

Okay, I think you are the one who has a simplified view of my posts, as I even mentioned that I would be open to accepting a different kind of cinematic aesthetic just as vulgar auteurists are trying to promote. You also always seem to think that I am rejecting Bay for the type of films he makes when that is not the case, and I've repeated that a ton.

I don't think Brad Bird's view is just a "sound bite," it is a short quote that represents a view that has grown from the early days of Griffith and Chaplin and the Soviet filmmakers to Frank Capra's views on filmmaking, to the auteurists of the French New Wave and almost every single important filmmaker since. If you want to believe that filmmakers should make films that they themselves do not enjoy and do not believe that are quality films, then go ahead. But I'm in good company when I view film is an art form for more personal expression or giving a personal touch to stories by different writers, and it is those films that stand the test of time, whether they are more conventional or experimental films.

That's also assuming that you are leading me to water in the first place, I don't think you are as you didn't even help me overcome my inability to appreciate Bay (who seems to be such a genuine master at what he's doing, nevermind that I appreciate the works of his contemporaries, I'm too narrow minded because I don't like the work of one specific filmmaker). But yeah, I think we are going in circles. It was good talking to you because I did learn some things, and I believe I understand your point of view, I just don't feel like it's one that I share. And thanks, hopefully I'll be able to make good films. You seem to be very good at what you do and very experienced, and I love how you have your own strong viewpoints and you give a lot of strong arguments, thanks for discussing with me!

 

[AudioPostExpert]

I don't think Brad Bird's view is just a "sound bite," it is a short quote that represents a view that has grown from the early days of Griffith and Chaplin and the Soviet filmmakers to Frank Capra's views on filmmaking ...

I agree there's no specific "sophisticated recipe for success", but both this and the other parts of the quote are hugely oversimplified, almost to the point of being inaccurate/misleading. Rather than being an absolute or universal filmmaking truth, Bird's quote is a partial truth, a truth with a number of conditions and within a number of constraints/limits. I don't expect you to take my word for it or even piece it together from articles/opinions you've read from critics/cinephiles or even filmmakers themselves. One way or another (probably through practical experience) you will have to learn it though, if you wish to make filmmaking a career.

That's also assuming that you are leading me to water in the first place, I don't think you are as you didn't even help me overcome my inability to appreciate Bay ...

Even here we are going round in circles. I've given you evidence where you saw none before, which you could easily have discovered for yourself but chose not to. There's much other evidence of masterful filmmaking in Bay's films, filmmaking principles which are applicable to ALL types/genres of film but if you don't want to appreciate or learn anything from someone who engages as many, if not more people than any current filmmaker, that is of course your choice. It is not my responsibility to help you overcome your inabilities, you've firstly got to want to overcome your inability (not just say you do) and then ultimately it's your responsibility. I've given you as much help as my time and communicating on a public forum permits, the rest is up to you (or not)!

G

 

[MiniJamesW]

I agree there's no specific "sophisticated recipe for success", but both this and the other parts of the quote are hugely oversimplified, almost to the point of being inaccurate/misleading. Rather than being an absolute or universal filmmaking truth, Bird's quote is a partial truth, a truth with a number of conditions and within a number of constraints/limits. I don't expect you to take my word for it or even piece it together from articles/opinions you've read from critics/cinephiles or even filmmakers themselves. One way or another (probably through practical experience) you will have to learn it though, if you wish to make filmmaking a career.

Yes, but the thing is that pretty much all modern auteur filmmakers follow that as a rule. Do you suppose that Jia Zhangke, Zhang Yimou, Brad Bird, Apichatpong Weerasethakul, Abbas Kiarostami, Wang Bing, Lav Diaz, Nuri Bilge Ceylan, Wong Kar-Wai, and even commercial filmmakers like Steven Spielberg choose to make films that they themselves don't want to see? I know that they always have to compromise, but they have a cinematic vision, and particularly the arthouse ones don't really care too much if their vision doesn't appeal to everyone (and they shouldn't, as I mentioned before because like classical music and fine literature, they make work that appeals to a smaller group of people, sometimes they succeed and sometimes they fail of course).

I know that I'm going to have to make compromises, and I know that I probably have an idealized view of filmmaking right now as I am a teenager just starting college and I only worked on amateur films through my teen years. But wouldn't you say that most major arthouse directors, and many commercial directors make films that they themselves would like to see?

Even here we are going round in circles. I've given you evidence where you saw none before, which you could easily have discovered for yourself but chose not to. There's much other evidence of masterful filmmaking in Bay's films, filmmaking principles which are applicable to ALL types/genres of film but if you don't want to appreciate or learn anything from someone who engages as many, if not more people than any current filmmaker, that is of course your choice. It is not my responsibility to help you overcome your inabilities, you've firstly got to want to overcome your inability (not just say you do) and then ultimately it's your responsibility. I've given you as much help as my time and communicating on a public forum permits, the rest is up to you (or not)!

You gave me evidence of one instance of the use of special effects. And you spoke about Bay's pacing (which I told you, I'm going to observe for myself when I watch one of his films, probably next week). I'm fine with that but you act as if it is self evident that Bay is a master just by going off his box office numbers. This is simply not true as there are plenty of other mainstream directors that are more celebrated by critics and audiences alike (as I have mentioned before, I think people like Bay's films but they don't think they are great works of cinema judging by popular votes on websites). Even the vulgar auteurists don't rate him highly and prefer Tony Scott or Justin Lin. It's like with me, I like a lot of second rate and even third rate Hong Kong films since they appeal to me, but I wouldn't label them as masterpieces or even great works of cinema. I think this is the way most people who enjoy his films feel about them. And by the way, I am somewhat part of Bay's demographic due to my age, I grew up with his films. The first Transformers film came out when I was 10 years old and I grew up as Bay continued to make the work he is best known for. At the same time I grew up watching other blockbusters which I preferred to Bay's films, even as a child. As I grew older and developed more critical facilities, I now believe that Bay's work isn't even on par with his contemporaries' works, let alone the greatest works of cinema.

Furthermore, you only talked about 'high drama,' 'tension,' and 'high octane.' This is not applicable to every type of film (how applicable is it to the works of Jafar Panahi or Woody Allen?), and also we can't assume that Bay is the only source to learn these concepts from. I prefer to learn from masters such as Hitchcock just as pretty much every other successful filmmaker has. Even if I'm just studying contemporary directors, I still think there are better choices than Bay. At the same time, I am willing to accept convincing cases for a reappraisal of Bay's work, but I don't even find him to be one of the great 'vulgar' auteurs let alone a great filmmaker, and I haven't seen arguments to convince me otherwise. But you see your arguments convinced me to re-watch his work and watch the films that I skipped out on. I don't think I'm as narrow minded about Bay as you may believe, since I know perfectly well that I may be wrong about him.

EDIT: I just watched Bad Boys, and I actually liked it. I'll share my thoughts on it tomorrow, let's just say I hope Bay's other films are as good or even better than this film.

 

[MiniJamesW]

Thoughts On Bad Boys

Okay so I just watched Michael Bay's debut feature film, Bad Boys last night and I have a lot of thoughts about it. First of all, I will mention that I watched this film purely for studying and not for my own pleasure, and also that it is my first time watching a Michael Bay film in a very long time so I had a fresh perspective on his cinema. Also, most of my judgement of Bay comes from his Transformers films since I never watched his early films (as they were not age appropriate for me when they were released). And bear with me since I may be talking about this film a bit out of order.

I was surprised by how much I genuinely liked Bad Boys, I don't find it to be a great film or a very good one but it's good enough, but unfortunately I feel like it had a lot more potential. I see how Bay starts his films with high octane scenes as he did with this one, an attempt by bad guys to rob our two protagonists. This scene was exciting and it did a good job at introducing the protagonists, the locations, and the style of the film. It has some attempts at humor with varying quality (IMO) but I'm glad it tried. Most of all, I was struck by the warm color scheme the film had which perfectly evoked the heat of the Miami setting. There was actually also some nice visual compositions in the beginning of the film (much of which was missing from the rest of the film I think).

After the intro, Bay sets up more character background and he sets up the simple plot of the film. I think these are weaker parts of the film, and it leads me to my next comment. At least with Bad Boys, Bay's film isn't all high octane scenes, the structure is very different. It seems to have an exciting action sequence followed by mediocre "character development" scenes (mostly consisting of bickering), followed by a twist in the story that makes the film exciting again. The film is very plot driven, but it had some potentially interesting characters that weren't developed enough. The relationship between Martin Lawrence and Will Smith's characters vaguely recalls the 'heroic bloodshed' Hong Kong genre with John Woo's tales of brotherhood in violent environments. I liked this aspect of the film, I liked how the film suggests a deep bond and connection between the two main characters, and I liked how the film even poked fun at potentially homoerotic tensions between the two characters. Unfortunately, the film didn't do enough because it mostly consisted of bickering between the two for the first half. I wish there were more touching scenes between the two, and better dialogue between the two (or at least dialogue that develops the film thematically).

One very annoying aspect of the film was that it almost always had digressive scenes based on the location, as if Bay had to include location-specific moments to each scene. When they are boxing, they have to show the characters boxing. When they are at a strip club, they have to exploit this and show images of women and incorporate this into the characters. When they are at a basketball court, they have to show a guy playing basketball while the dialogue is going on. I don't feel like most of these digressions work because they are not absurd enough to make the film quirky or funny, and they are not appropriate enough to fit seamlessly, they are just very awkward. I see Bay trying to connect these back to character traits and plot points by adding dialogue at the end of these scenes, but I feel that this is very tacked on. Bay could do without these digressions, as I think his work doesn't benefit from it (since they are never tonally appropriate or fit with the structure of his film).

The film has a lot of kinetic camerawork, I don't think it's particularly great but it isn't bad either. The action choreography is not particularly memorable either, but again, it's not bad. Bay handles all of this with competence and not mastery.

Bay's film of course adheres to strict classical continuity, but definitely a more fast paced form. Bay doesn't really do anything inventive with the way he uses cinematic space, but I don't think that is what the film is attempting so it doesn't matter to me.

There is a lot of use of broad humor in the film, much of it doesn't work for me but it's alright, I like broad humor in action films. Unfortunately there is also some horrible acting in the film. I think most everyone aside from Martin Lawrence and Will Smith did a horrible job.

Although I found the action camerawork and choreography not to be very great, I find a lot to admire in Bay's action work in this film. I found most of the soundtrack to be very terrible because it forced emotions, but I found the suspenseful music to be used to great effect during action sequences. The fast cutting also made for a different type of action (which I don't personally enjoy much but I have to admire and respect) because it isn't attempting to focus on movement or the actions themselves as Hong Kong filmmakers do. Instead Bay uses fast cutting and almost disorienting camerawork to show a more subjective feeling of action. I don't think Bay is perfect at this, but this is a type of action filmmaking that has a lot of potential (and isn't generally the kind of action cinema I prefer). Instead of Bay's action looking like a dance as it looks like in John Woo's films or in martial arts cinema, Bay's action seems to put me into the raw feeling of being in the fight. He does this by combining the music, kinetic camerawork (that isn't smooth like the Hong Kong camerawork), fast cutting, slo mo, and simply making the action feel incomprehensible. Unfortunately, I don't think Bad Boys reaches these heights most of the time, but when it does, I find it to be an undeniable quality, and I not only appreciate it, but I also enjoy it!

Some problems I find with the film is that early on there is some forced drama and emotion between the characters. The emotions the film tries to give us are very unearned and it becomes even more frustrating when an emotional musical theme always appears during these scenes. I wish that Bay would have done a better job at developing character in the first half before giving us these dramatic moments which could have actually been powerful if handled in a better manner.

I also noticed that most of the conflicts of the film arise from external situations, almost none of them come from the characters themselves. A situation is always set-up and the characters respond to it. Most of the conflicts that are actually caused by the characters are a result of inconsequential and unnecessary bickering. I wish there was at least one more humanizing conflict in the film.

Some other flaws that I found were uninspired set design, I really found the sets to even be distracting in how bland they were.

There are a couple of scenes that I dislike a lot. The scene where the girl tries to hit Martin Lawrence's character with a bat is very tonally inconsistent and is once again marred by sentimental soundtrack work. Another scene that I disliked a lot was when Martin Lawrence's character first went to stay in Will Smith's character's house because he was impersonating him. I found that this scene was too exaggerated for comedic effect and it didn't work because it wasn't realistic at all.

Some other problems I found were unnecessary movie references which really were meant to appeal to target audiences back then, but these references have nothing to do with the movie. I also hate how the girl in the film just shows how liberal she is with vegetarianism and gay rights, I really think there was no point to this and it just made her annoying. I don't care if she is conservative or liberal, the comedy was created with stupid material in this case!

I think the set-up with Martin Lawrence's character having to impersonate Will Smith's character was very interesting, I only think it could have been handled much better. It could have been more thematically meaningful.

I hate how flat the antagonists seem, they are not memorable characters at all and have no interesting scenes. I'd rather have them not appear in the film at all and be something we have to imagine until the end since they were not significant in any way!

There were some wacky comedic scenes (such as the scene where Martin Lawrence's character thinks that his wife is cheating on him, and the convenience store scene). These scenes made me laugh a lot, I only wish they took more advantage of staging to create comedy (but this isn't a complaint against Bay in particular, I feel like few filmmakers outside of the silent era or Hong Kong's golden age used staging for comedy very well).

I found the second half of the film to be much better at showing emotional scenes. These scenes worked very well in my opinion.

Although I hate most of the digressive scenes in the film, I have to say that Bay used them to great effect to add tension to action scenes. I never really thought about this way of creating tension, so if there's one thing I learned from Bay with Bad Boys it is that showing digressive scenes with other main characters during an action scene can add tension or create different effects. I think that this is a very interesting concept to explore!

I think that Michael Bay was very creative in using bickering as a strategy for the main characters to attack and get out of difficult situations. It was funny and kind of cool in my opinion. In general, I like how Bay adds comedy to his action scenes even though most of the time I don't find these scenes to be funny, when I do, I laugh a lot!

Overall, I have to say that Bad Boys is a very flawed film that I liked a lot. It is a good film but it had a lot more potential (if I have to give it a rating, it would be a 6/10). From my understanding after reading a bit, Bay was given a horrible script and had a tough time, so I think he did a good job considering the situation. I don't know if Bay is a great screenwriter in his genre, but some re-writes could have made this into a very good film in my opinion. I think it's a kind of successor to the "heroic bloodshed" Hong Kong films in a way, and I think that is a very good direction. What I like is that it does this while having a very American conception of action sequences that makes the approach fresh. Unfortunately the non-action scenes are of mixed quality and most of them are bad, if the comedy and drama scenes were improved it would be much better! I also wish there was a few more action sequences as they were good, even though they weren't especially great. I hope that Bay's other films are just as good as this film or even better, but my memories of the Transformers film still haunt me, as those felt really bad even when I was a young kid watching them for the first time on the big screen.