The first in our series of auteur threads. Discuss the relative merits of his explosions here.

yeah I fucking got that, mag.
ok I'm going to skim through the rest of your post now.

nevermind I read the next line and decided to stop reading.

Yeah, but an auteur's work should also, in theory, possess clear thematic links, and, in doing so, reveal something about the man himself. In other words, auteurs make personal films. It's not just style. Ridley Scott's not a fucking auteur.

Speaking glibly, yes, they do, but not really.

Meet Michael Bay.

My friend pretty much covered everything that makes Michael Bay interesting and great here.

I think he is a true auteur in every sense of the word.

Serious question. One that in the aftermath of the above, needs an answer.

Is Hal Needham an auteur?

I'm open to the idea. And if Michael Bay gets through (which, again, I am open to), Hal must as well.

*vomit*

AWESOME!

The greatest director of our time?

Wow, it was weird seeing this thread here.




um...I don't think you can conclude anything about the audience because they like Bay's films. Visuals themselves and appreciation of them still depend on divergent factors. Having a great visual eye and using slow motion well depends on being able to incorporate all those things as to how viewers will respond. Liking that doesn't indicate intelligence; intelligence isn't defined by newspapers. I could argue Bay's style is a new sort of thing, is less accepted, and therefore derided.

But seriously, there's no reason for it to indicate anything.



He's complained about the screenplay for many of his films. I loved the Island. The others...they all did what they were supposed to do. Take BBII. The jokes and the rest of the plot strung together the action scenes. The action scenes were each unique and interesting in their own way.



Most big directors though will have stars in their movies. So it's difficult to say what caused the other based on that. You could wonder if Affleck was ever much of a star either. Willis, look at a list of his grosses without Bay. BB didn't have stars at the time. The Island had other weaknesses...Plus look at everything else and the case for starpower isn't strong.

I agree though that the right person in the role can sell it. Think Depp and Downey.

I think it's his visuals and the types of films that are sold.



Every historical movie interprets history. The question is whether it gives a viewer something to think about well. Pearl Harbor could have been worse; it was corny I think. It doesn't depend though on the facts. Yeah, you could watch Discovery or history for that (although that only makes a difference for the convergence of the total set of historical patterns).

I think though that movies like Iron Man and POTC were helped by following their own rules. How that relates to whatever you might consider realistic is another matter.



Eh, however you look at it, it's great visuals, a tone and style that works, big budget concepts, and slow motion car chases and explosions.

I think his style is more than fun. It reflects part of a generation, although all the things that make them Bay films might not be characteristic of the generation.

Bay's movies are made as entertainment. I don't think people would ever react as they do in his films. But then he needs to keep a tone in a movie rather then show the various and perhaps disoriented ways things could unfold in those situations.

Sure they are idealized, but why not?

Saying what's real in terms of government officials being qualified is interpretive just like calling someone a conservative based on certain characteristics.

In term of individualism, I could say that that government officials, sports writers, critics, and others could all have incentives embedded in their systems that encourage behaviors or tendencies in trying to get the public to accept beliefs that could differ from what's best. Even if they could find the truth the entire paradigm could prevent them from advocating it, and it might keep them from wanting it in the first place. So as an individual I think it's my place wherever and whenever to stay with ideas unless disproved and regardless of whether they are considered accepted or not. Judge as best I can whether they are ultimately true, and in that way, America could be said to depend on the individual.

Personally I love Ridley Scott, but no, I wouldn't (for the most part) consider him an auteur. He's just a really fantastic (in my opinion, I don't wish to debate *him* or his qualifications here) director-for-hire.

Cameron and Jackson (who fought for years to make King Kong/LOTR) fit your definition of auteur a little better while also having the stylistic personal touch and remain huge blockbuster directors.

I too love Bay for all the same reasons people loathe him. Is he auteur? I dunno. Transformers is not an auteur film but is Armageddon? The Rock? Maybe. Thing is about Bay is he is one of the ultimate Hollywood showmen, so devoid of wanting to produce "artwork" that his commercialism and aim to *entertain* becomes sort of an artform in itself. Sure, it's unreal, and people react in strange ways but they also do so in in Wes Anderson films.

And at the end of the day, he does have a point of view, he does reveal his political and social leanings, there *is* a romantic optimism in his films and they excentuate the heroic and self-less. These are not popular concepts for the more liberal Hollywood and cinephiles, but in a way it says more about the cinephiles than it does Michael Bay. It always made me laugh that Criterion had to defend placing Armageddon in the Criterion Collection, like a film collection *that vast* does not recognize a whole branch of commercial 1990s popular cinema.

I don't have a problem with romantic optimism, but I'm not certain it's for liberal reasons. Although I've heard him criticized as conservative before. I like Armageddon for the production and entertainment value, but then there are many parts that made me laugh. It doesn't seem like the sort of movie to be in Criterion so I'm not surprised that it would get attention...If we were to talk about MIB, ID4 and others, it wouldn't bother me personally to see those movies excluded for any selection. But then I think Armageddon sort of makes sense in particular because it is one of the most unique films of the decade.

With a movie like I, Robot, which I loved, I tend to like the plot/story and suspense the most. But in terms of the visuals, it wouldn't necessarily have to involve shooting and and explosions (I don't mind them, I liked Batman and Transformer cartoons as a kid). I like it for the same sorts of reasons as kung fu movies; for the movement, color, sfx etc on screen. Whatever it is, it is not something anyone can do. With movies that tend just to have things getting smashed or ripped apart, like this year's Hulk, I'm a lot less interested.

Michael Bay owns!

Explosions and action is a genre in itself... and he's like the master of it

Bay. Is. God.

He was essentially a director-for-hire, it wasn't really his project at the start. True auteurs incubate projects from the beginning IMO.

You said "sort of movie" so we're debating genre, not the particular film. But I would say, why not include Blockbusters into the "story" of what filmmaking is? It's definately an aspect of the whole, and that's what the Collection aims to celebrate.

Yes, I wasn't making a claim about whether it should be there. I was commenting on why it would be surprising.

When I talked about it particularly I was just referring to the most plausible reason I had for why it had been selected.

Should it be there? In a sense now thinking of it, I do think ID4 was an important movie even if I don't like it that much. If I were to make a list based on the 'story of filmmaking', I would include it and many 200m+ films. I think the collection has its own biases, but then how many wouldn't? IDK, we could then go on about a systemic bias against recent hit films (I don't think Titanic is included is it?), but that's the same snob argument we've had for a while. But yeah, I obviously agree with major films being a part of what a collection should celebrate.

Transformers though is an adaptation so, it wouldn't be 'the beginning' for anyone. From the point where he worked on it did he entirely structure the film and what it was? I suppose though there is a difference in creating Armageddon from the beginning and working with robots that already exist from another source.

Anyway, I suppose I should read a bit about auteur theory. But when I look at movies and think of directors, style and the overall creation of a film would relate to whether it's 'personal' in any way I understand that. Well, I'm not sure what that means. I'll put it this way: if you include Alex Proyas I'll be more likely to agree.

Ridley Scott? Honestly I don't feel Gladiator would have been the same film with someone else.

Well... is anything that Kubrick made not adapted from a pre-existing novel or screenplay?

Good observation. Only two of his very early works I think - Fear and Desire and Killer's Kiss.

I think it's a difference. I don't like the Kubrick movies I've seen that much though besides for Eyes Wide Shut. AI I suppose if you count that.

I'd pick Ridley Scott.