Michael Bay - What is Bayhem?

[Scott Crawley]

The comparison to Ridley Scott's films in the video is meaningful only in the most brittle visual sense. Ridley's palette is so much richer, and his characters most often live in a real moral universe with complex choices, doubts, flaws and traits with which we can identify. There's plenty of action in Man on Fire, brilliantly staged and delivered, but it's not paint by numbers. The action serves and is built around human characters in crisis, not the other way round. That makes all the difference.

That is a good point, but the comparison in the video was to Tony Scott. His style was very different from Ridley's and his films more akin to Bay's. Your example is Tony's so maybe it was just a little oversight. If so pardon my confusion. Man On Fire's visual construction and characters definitely seem more layered in story and visually justified than Bay.

The video breaks the shots down well I think and the most salient point IMHO relates to the motives behind his camera moves, or rather the lack of them. I'm not well versed in Bay but every film of his that I have seen contains that moment when I ask myself "Why did the camera move like that?" A huge dramatic move will end in a meh moment; no crisis, no vital information... Nothing. It is not the language I am accustomed to speaking and I find it confusing and anti-climactic. His is a new film vernacular that simply doesn't suit my sensibility or taste. Perhaps it is a personal thing.

Like it or not I give Bay a lot of credit. Yup, he does well and he's living the dream.

 

[David Kuhn]

Could the seemingly excessive use of dramatic camera motion just be a part of the hyperbolic nature of Bay's work in general? It seems to me that the video's analysis of Bay's work points out how he seems to obsessively go one click farther on every shot... every time. He seems to be one of those guys who would totally get the need for an 11 on his amp's volume control.

 

[Savva Svet]

A buddy of mine knows a dude who has worked with Bay on some of his films. And he says he's more concerned about covering a scene in as many angles as possible, rather than on performance. This way when it comes to the edit, he can put it together and make for a real 'flashy' scene. That's not to say his actors are horrible..not great, but not horrible.

 

[Jason Diamond]

I think the guy is a genius, the complexity of those films are enormous. To bring everything together like he does is pure magician shit,

Even tho he does the same thing over adn over regardless of what the film is or about it still looks insane. The Story is never his strong pint, it's ridiculous things happening on screen choreographed to a T.

 

[Timothy Eaton]

That is a good point, but the comparison in the video was to Tony Scott. His style was very different from Ridley's and his films more akin to Bay's. Your example is Tony's so maybe it was just a little oversight. If so pardon my confusion. Man On Fire's visual construction and characters definitely seem more layered in story and visually justified than Bay.

Like it or not I give Bay a lot of credit. Yup, he does well and he's living the dream.

Yes, sorry Scott, it was Tony. Same visual territory, though: incredible images with a point of view, that serve story, rather than story being driven by the need to amp everything up.

I guess he's living his dream. My dream is not to make big, insipid, boring movies that are mostly about things blowing up and objects smashing into each other. For the life of me, I can't understand why viewers find these kinds of movies satisfying. Go figure.

Tim Eaton

 

[David Battistella]

To me the real master of camera movement is scorcese, paired with how Thelma schoonmaker edits the sequences.

But to me this is not about who is better, it's about exploring filmmaking techniques, storytelling techniques.

battistella

 

[Dominik Muench]

Its interesting to see how much segregation Michael Bay causes amongst other filmmakers.
I remember at filmschool I used to study with a bunch of kids way to arrogant for their own good, who absolutely loathed the guy and looked down on everyone who wasn't an artful filmmaker trying to create the deepest most meaningful movies possible. What a load of horseradish.
I don't think there is a point in judging other filmmakers based on their style of work because it all comes down to what every individual director is trying to achieve for himself.
Some filmmakers want to be artists and be mentioned along the ranks of Truffaut and Co. Others want to make a living in this industry by catering to a broader market. Both choices are perfectly fine and should be respected by others. The ones that do want to be artists then don't have much reason to complain that the industry doesn't support them (if the market wants chocolate ice cream...don't go try and sell em potato chips) because lets face it....the majority of cinema goes want entertainment....60 year old Joe Blow plumber...who works 55 hours a week elbow deep in a pipe of sewage and shit is hardly going to watch "My Dinner with Andre" on a friday night when he heads to the movies to be entertained and to switch off for a while.....its more likely he wants to see action or comedy. And thats exactly what Bay gives the people. As far as I know the guy never claimed to be the next Fellini or as big as Jesus. Michael Bay has a fantastic understanding of what the masses want to see (blood and games....been like that since ancient rome) ....He might not be as poetic and philosophical a director as lets say Terrence Malick, but god damn the man is a fantastic entrepreneur and understands his market.

 

[Scott Crawley]

Absolutely.

However we all want to find our own voices, and comparing and differentiating our tastes and techniques with one another is the first step in doing that. Some take a more negative approach than others or just come off that way. We can all use an occasional reminder to be nice about it though. It's good to be supportive, even of a guy who we may not think needs our support. Besides, that kind of cruelty is usually a sign of insecurity. It isn't the kind of thing I personally want to display anyway, though I know I am prone to do it.

Its interesting to see how much segregation Michael Bay causes amongst other filmmakers.
I remember at filmschool I used to study with a bunch of kids way to arrogant for their own good, who absolutely loathed the guy and looked down on everyone who wasn't an artful filmmaker trying to create the deepest most meaningful movies possible. What a load of horseradish.
I don't think there is a point in judging other filmmakers based on their style of work because it all comes down to what every individual director is trying to achieve for himself.
Some filmmakers want to be artists and be mentioned along the ranks of Truffaut and Co. Others want to make a living in this industry by catering to the market. The ones that do want to be artists then don't have a right to complain that the industry doesn't support them because lets face it....the majority of cinema goes want entertainment....55 year old Joe Blow plumber...who works 55 hours a day elbow deep in a pipe of sewage and shit is hardly going to watch "My Dinner with Andre" on a friday night when he goes to the movies to be entertained and to switch off for a while.....its more likely he wants to see action or comedy. And thats exactly what Bay gives the people. As far as I know the guy never claimed to be the next Fellini or as big as Jesus. Michael Bay has a fantastic understanding of what the masses want to see (blood and games....been like that since ancient rome) and thats exactly what he gives them....He might not be as poetic and philosophical a director as lets say Terrence Malick, but god damn the man is a fantastic entrepreneur and understands his market.

 

[Dominik Muench]

Oh for sure....I'm a firm believer and practitioner of the "no dick philosophy" ....not in the literal sense but more spiritual...its quite simple...no matter how successful a person is, I see and treat everyone equal....I don't give a rats ass whether you're worth a billion dollars or live off welfare or if you received 5 academy awards in the last decade alone, none of that makes you a better human being alone and gives you the right to stomp on other people. there is never a reason or justification to be a dick....EVER. Its the easiest way to get along with people and be a good team player and leader.... don't be a dick.
Ive worked with Dp's who've thrown full blown tantrums on set because the camera trainees left the lens cap on after swinging a glass and the viewfinder was black. Or directors who've thrown stuff at their assistants for getting their coffee order wrong....DUDES what the hell ??
At the end of the day we are all doing a job and when we clock off and go home after a wrap we are humans, no more. Unless you've walked in someone else's shoes don't judge them for their performance...or style of filmmaking ^^

 

[Timothy Eaton]

Oh for sure....I'm a firm believer and practitioner of the "no dick philosophy" ....not in the literal sense but more spiritual...its quite simple...no matter how successful a person is, I see and treat everyone equal....I don't give a rats ass whether you're worth a billion dollars or live off welfare or if you received 5 academy awards in the last decade alone, none of that makes you a better human being alone and gives you the right to stomp on other people. there is never a reason or justification to be a dick....EVER.
Ive worked with Dp's who've thrown full blown tantrums on set because the camera trainees left the lens cap on after swinging a glass and the viewfinder was black. Or directors who've thrown stuff at their assistants for getting their coffee order wrong....DUDES what the hell ??
At the end of the day we are all doing a job and when we clock off and go home after a wrap we are humans, no more. Unless you've walked in someone else's shoes don't judge them for their performance...or style of filmmaking ^^

Hi Dominik,

The difference for me is criticizing the work vs. the individual. Once you put your work in the public square, it seems fair game for critiques, however sharp those might be. That's the nature of my comments here, none of which were directed at Michael Bay or his person. I find his films insipid and boring, but that's not a critique of Mr. Bay himself.

Tim

 

[Dominik Muench]

No problem at all Timothy, I wasn't necessarily referring to your comments, its more a general observation I made amongst filmmakers everywhere, whenever the name Michael Bay gets mentioned. I had so many heated discussions with students about this guy, a lot of people seem to have very strong negative opinions about him.

 

[Marc Wielage]

If only the studios would let him. He was pretty much forced to make Transformers 4, so he could shoot Pain and Gain.

Forbes magazine seems to think that Mr. Bay is getting about 10% of the gross on the Transformers movies, with a guarantee of about $80M per film, so I'd say nobody's "forcing" him to do anything.

I think the visual essay is actually interesting, and while I think a lot of those movies are real dumb, I gotta say that Bay has got some really interesting stylistic techniques. I liked Pain & Gain quite a bit, and was glad to see the director prove he could handle a pretty meaty plot without any special effects.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

Nice find.
The commercial directors that I work with mostly usaually laughs when I give a reference to a michael bay directed film for a camera move or such.

What's more laughable about this is that commercials would benefit with some Bayhem. The whole base for Michael Bay's work is to catch attention and be a spectacle. If a commercial director could pull of the same level of "eye-catch", they would probably make more successful commercials (not every commercial of course). A feature film is dependent on the story and characters to be what most call "good", that's why Bay's movies don't really hold together with storytelling and characters. But for commercials I think it's the opposite.

But as you and I both know, there are a lot of commercial creators who think they do works of "art" with their commercials... few commercials though, are really on a level that could be called art in my opinion.

 

[Scott Crawley]

All Work and no play makes Jack a dull boy

All Work and no play makes Jack a dull boy

Sure, and it is like listening to a person talk who cusses incessantly and for no good reason. He seems angry even when he isn't and when he has an actual need to be emphatic or express emotions typically reserved for cussing, he has nowhere to go. Without a break it becomes tiresome to listen to and many just tune it out. It is quite numbing really.

Many of my friends and colleagues feel that CGI effects are inferior to practical effects and the discussion usually sounds quite similar to this one. Naturally, Bay's work is often cited among the examples. Folks will talk about scale, gravity and light and are often unable to clearly define why they appear unreal or lacking in gravitas. The artistry and accuracy of the models generally holds up under closer examination so maybe the reason is the hyperactive hyperbolic camera. What do you think?

Could the seemingly excessive use of dramatic camera motion just be a part of the hyperbolic nature of Bay's work in general? It seems to me that the video's analysis of Bay's work points out how he seems to obsessively go one click farther on every shot... every time. He seems to be one of those guys who would totally get the need for an 11 on his amp's volume control.

 

[David Kuhn]

Sure, and it is like listening to a person talk who cusses incessantly and for no good reason. He seems angry even when he isn't and when he has an actual need to be emphatic or express emotions typically reserved for cussing, he has nowhere to go. Without a break it becomes tiresome to listen to and many just tune it out. It is quite numbing really.

Many of my friends and colleagues feel that CGI effects are inferior to practical effects and the discussion usually sounds quite similar to this one. Naturally, Bay's work is often cited among the examples. Folks will talk about scale, gravity and light and are often unable to clearly define why they appear unreal or lacking in gravitas. The artistry and accuracy of the models generally hold up under closer examination so maybe the reason is this... The hyperbolic camera. What do you think?

Good analogy... IT'S LIKE SOMEONE ALWAYS POSTING IN CAPS... WHAT DO THEY DO WHEN THEY WANT TO EMPHASIZE SOMETHING? At the same time (playing the devils advocate)... I see this sort of tactic used widely these days... if a little of something is great, then continuous use of it must be better! Is what Bay does visually so different from what Quentain Tarantino does with graphic violence and obscure references to other films that (to me) have the feel of the simpsons comic book guy? If Bay is a one trick pony worthy of derision then why does Tarantino get his leg humped every time he's seen in public?

I guess I worry that the Bay bashing smacks a bit too much of elitism... if he appeals to Joe Public he must be a hack. I hate it when I find that sort of attitude in myself... luckily my wife is very good at giving me the smackdown when needed. I honestly don't understand WHY Joe Public likes Tarantino so much... if you've not actually studied the genre's he working in then his films are basically reduced to pushing the violence knob to 11 and beyond.

I'm a computer guy and thought CGI was great when it first came out, now I look back at those films and it's clear that effects (generally) don't hold up, and that's especially obvious comparing them to other approaches. Since I'm a computer guy... Sci-fi is the genre I follow most closely (of course). The original Star Wars holds up nicely... but the CGI Lucas added in the DVD's looks TERRIBLE. Bladerunner is still visually outstanding... totally watchable... and no CGI. Same for the Fifth Element. I doubt we'll be able to say the same of the current crop of CGI fests in 20-30 years.

 

[Scott Crawley]

I'm a computer guy and thought CGI was great when it first came out, now I look back at those films and it's clear that effects (generally) don't hold up, and that's especially obvious comparing them to other approaches. Since I'm a computer guy... Sci-fi is the genre I follow most closely (of course). The original Star Wars holds up nicely... but the CGI Lucas added in the DVD's looks TERRIBLE. Bladerunner is still visually outstanding... totally watchable... and no CGI. Same for the Fifth Element. I doubt we'll be able to say the same of the current crop of CGI fests in 20-30 years.

You are likely more knowledgable of such things than I then. To be clear though I was not referring to legacy CGI effects. The art form has evolved incredibly and I think it is fairly mature now so that many effects these days get past the audience without notice. Would you agree?

I know little to nothing about how Bay views himself but I seem to recall a few articles or headlines that suggest that he views himself as an original. If I am not mistaken, he takes the lions share of credit for what he makes and considers himself a bit of a trailblazer. Perhaps he is deserving of it. Tarantino on the other hand is a student of film who like Scorcesse, is known to have an encyclopedic knowledge of our art's history. He not only acknowledges our predecessors but he celebrates them. His films are homage. He frequently deflects credit. People seem to respond better to that.

My personal feeling is that Tarantino has more substance. There is frequently much more going on in what he is doing, or at least he has demonstrated that ability. He is not a one trick pony, but when at play he frequently enjoys leaning on the violence knob.

Somewhat related:
https://www.ted.com/talks/kirby_fer...=on.ted.com_b0IYe&utm_content=awesm-publisher

Ferguson compares The White Album and The Grey Album in the same way. Why are The Beatles embraced while Danger Mouse is dismissed by many? Same or similar?

Is Bay bashing elitist? For the most part I would probably say yes, but then I think many are just insecure film makers who are trying desperately to define themselves but have yet to find their own voices. I count myself as one of those who is trying to be more sensitive... Less like a dick. ;-) Dom.

 

[Scott Crawley]

In defense of dicks:

Often times (but not always) when I am being extremely critical of the work of another I forget to consider how it may look or sound. What is not evident at that point is how ruthless I am (Or at least try to be) when reviewing my own work.

Without that perspective one can come off as an enormous dick without meaning to be. I am often ignorant no doubt, but my critiques are generally without malice. In a world of sensitives and egos that can be hard for people to take. That is why the reminders to take a step back, or keep to myself are important. (at least to me)

The difficulty comes with the resultant disingenuous feeling that follows.

I don't state this as an attempt to evade responsibility for the times when I am a dick. I'm just floating it out there for non-dicks to consider.

This also isn't meant to be all about me and my ego, but to state these things in the sole context of someone else would be like... Well, like something a dick would do. ;-)

 

[Dominik Muench]

Haha Scott, I wasn't referring to you don't worry. This was more about on set etiquette and general interaction amongst us, I'm not saying that criticism in general is an issue. Hell, the only way we can progress and improve our work is through constructive criticism from others, no one ever grew or improved on himself from praise alone. I just find it so ironic seeing all these arrogant film students and filmmakers hating on michael bay when a lot of them cant even manage to make a decent living in the local industry based on their own skill sets. whether I like him as a filmmaker or not, I would never be so arrogant and judge his skills for a very simple reason...everyone knows michael bay and no one knows me....his daily credit credit card allowance is probably bigger than my bank account will ever be, so who am I to judge ? not that this makes him necessarily a better human being, as I mentioned in a previous post, but certainly a much better filmmaker than myself.

 

[David Kuhn]

It's not just filmmakers or other experts that are critical of Michael Bay... there seems to be a current in modern society that loves to see something in a public figure that we can 'collectively' deride. Bay is HUGELY successful, and instead of saying that his work is just not our thing... we instead seem to take a perverse glee in marginalizing it (and I'm including myself... and I'm absolutely unqualified to judge the quality of his work as other than a simple consumer). It brings to mind a quote from a kids movie of all things... Ratatouille: "Anton Ego: In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little, yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face, is that in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so."

Ferguson's TED talk was very good (they usually are). In the technical community there's quite a bit of discussion around current IP law... the general consensus is that it needs to change, but HOW it needs to change is not nearly as easy to get your head around.

On the CGI question... I think the Sci-Fi movie that I liked the most over the last 10 years was "Moon"... and I don't think there was any CGI at all in that film, which underlines for me that flashy visuals are not required to make a great film (even in a genre that one would think would benefit the most), Avatar had flashy visuals is spades, but it doesn't even make my top 10 sci-fi list. I think the big technical problem with CGI is that it's not yet able to bridge the uncanny valley, and as it gets closer we will get more sensitive to it. Once it well and truly crosses into 'undetectable' maybe the complaints will taper off - or maybe we'll still be able to tell it's cgi because of the 'fantastic' nature of the effects.