DID YOU READ

Why Michael Bay should be taken seriously: One fan’s spirited defense of the controversal filmmaker

Why Michael Bay should be taken seriously: One fan’s spirited defense of the controversal filmmaker (photo)

Posted by on

By Travis McClain

If Internet discussions are any indication, the consensus on “Transformers: Dark of the Moon” is that the entire world is lining up to see it, but no one over the age of seven will admit wanting to see it. These kinds of polarizing, hyperbolic contentions are nothing new to discussions about commercial art. The goal, it seems, is to please enough of the public to make money , but not so much of the public that the work is enjoyed by (gasp) the masses. Forum threads in which people are openly excited to see the movie are compelled to qualify their enthusiasm with remarks insisting that they have low expectations (if they have any expectations at all). It’s as though going to the theater to see this movie will be intellectual slumming, so we need to know that they’re different from the mindless sheep who don’t realize how vapid these films are. Michael Bay is a timely microcosm for exploring some of the themes of modern film discussion.

The box office tells us that Bay is at the top of the heap in contemporary cinema, but any conversation with cinephiles eventually suggests that he is some kind of second-class filmmaker. His films, the argument goes, fail to aspire to anything beyond a series of escalating fireballs. This accusation — though admittedly fair — takes on a tone of disdain because it so often comes from the segment of film aficionados who worship at the altar of the auteur theory. The “di-rec-tor,” as we’re told, is single-handedly responsible for crafting a film and therefore entitled to all glory for the successes and scorn for the failures. Ergo, because Michael Bay’s filmography is comprised exclusively of popcorn action flicks, it’s evidence that he is not a “serious” filmmaker.

I concur with William Goldman, who famously blasted the auteur theory in his “Adventures in the Screen Trade” by rightly pointing out that film is a collaborative medium. Yes, it’s true that a director’s job is to marshal the various departments and pass final approval of their work, but he or she can only approve or disapprove of what is devised and submitted to them. I have an innate admiration for writers, but is it really a defect of Michael Bay’s that he has no writing credits? Aside from the obvious issue of financing, a film can only exist if there is a screenplay. Sets, costumes and props must all be designed and created to realize the imagined story of the screenplay. Do we fault a director for not also creating those things themselves? Of course we do not. That would be unfair and absurd. It’s not their job as director to do those things.

So if we reject the idea that a director is solely responsible for everything we see on the screen — which we should reject, as there are countless talented, hard working people who are responsible for what we see — and we are willing to concede that it is unfair to expect a director to do specific jobs, then we must assess a director for what he or she really does. Ultimately, the director’s task is to execute the production of a film. For my money, there may be no one in Hollywood in the same league as Michael Bay and my first piece of evidence is “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen.”

It made a fortune and seemingly everyone hated it for being a convoluted mess, and I don’t need to rehash any of that. What is often overlooked in the discussions about that film, though, is how unlikely was its production. Consider that Paramount set a release date before they even had a story in place, and then before anything was written came the writers’ strike. Upon its resolution, screenwriters Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman were sequestered in a hotel room and handed in pages at a time as they were written. Those pages were eagerly taken by all the other departments, who need to find shooting locations, secure permits, design costumes, sets, props; actors had to be cast and learn their parts.

All of this took place in far less time than a film of its scale really needed. The CGI effects were so ambitious that one of the Industrial Light & Magic animation computers overheated and was fried, and the effects were still being created up to the last minute before the film’s premiere. Yes, there was time to discuss and refine the story, but far less than was (obviously) needed. Shooting began on June 2, 2008 and the film opened on June 24, 2009. I’ll readily concede that “Revenge of the Fallen” is flawed, but rather than crucify Bay for it, I would expect any “serious” cinephile would stand in awe of the fact that he managed to meet Paramount’s unreasonable deadline with a finished product. I suspect few of his peers could have succeeded with such an ambitious production schedule and so little time.

For all the admiration of artistry within film, there seems to be a discontinuity about appreciating the sheer logistics of making a movie of the scale on which Bay operates. How you can know the distinction between a cinematographer and a director of photography, but not be astounded that Bay gets these kinds of movies made with so many people involved — particularly stunt coordinators and performers and effects units — makes no sense to me. Until, that is, I consider the auteur theory. We’re not interested in what a director really does. We just want to idolize the ones who oversaw the production of the films that resonate with us. Bay’s films may entertain us, but they do not challenge us to leave the theater and re-examine ourselves or our world. Ergo, they are an inferior form of storytelling and Bay must, by extension, be a second-class storyteller.

I’m reminded of Ian Fleming, creator of James Bond. Paul Johnson once wrote that, “Mr. Fleming has no literary skill, the construction of the book is chaotic, and entire incidents and situations are inserted, and then forgotten in a haphazard manner.” Sound familiar? For his part, Fleming insisted that he was a “writer,” not an “author,” and that “The target of my books lay somewhere between the solar plexus and the upper thigh.” As it turns out, there was plenty of room on the book shelves for Ian Fleming’s unskilled chaos alongside works that sought to change the world by affecting its audience. Fleming was right not to apologize for his works, as is Bay today.

It may be tempting to think that any idiot could make a fortune just stringing together scenes of sex and violence in a book or following a car chase with a gun fight and an explosion with a massive fireball. Ian Fleming and Michael Bay may make it seem obvious and easy, but there have been countless imitators who have failed to enjoy their level of sustained success. To date, only one Bay film was a box office failure in the United States (2005’s poorly marketed “The Island”). If you think it’s easy to consistently win over that many people, send an e-mail to the White House and ask President Obama how hard we can be to keep happy.

More importantly, there’s nothing wrong with trying to please the public. This case was made most clearly by Preston Sturges through “Sullivan’s Travels.” Of course, I don’t need to summarize that film for you serious cinephiles but for the casual movie viewer, it’s about a director known for making lighthearted comedies who feels inadequate and sets off to make a dramatic picture. He takes off to live as a homeless bum for research into misery, and by the end of the film he learns how important it can be to the public — many of whom are already miserable — to just get away from it and laugh for a couple hours at a movie.

So long as my stupid Crohn’s-infested guts cooperate, I intend to go see “Transformers: Dark of the Moon” the night it opens. I dig watching robots beat the snot out of each other, and I feel confident going into the movie that Michael Bay will have approved a final cut that throws lots of fun stuff on the screen and moves at a brisk pace. I can go back to exploring Ingmar Bergman’s filmography and the religious symbolism of Persona later. Enjoying a Michael Bay film doesn’t make me a poseur when discussing Bergman, but turning up my nose at Michael Bay on principle does make me a pretentious snob.

What are your own thoughts on Michael Bay? Chime in below or on Facebook or Twitter.

Watch More
JaniceAndJeffrey_102_MPX-1920×1080

Hard Out

Comedy From The Closet

Janice and Jeffrey Available Now On IFC's Comedy Crib

Posted by on

She’s been referred to as “the love child of Amy Sedaris and Tracy Ullman,” and he’s a self-described “Italian who knows how to cook a great spaghetti alla carbonara.” They’re Mollie Merkel and Matteo Lane, prolific indie comedians who blended their robust creative juices to bring us the new Comedy Crib series Janice and Jeffrey. Mollie and Matteo took time to answer our probing questions about their series and themselves. Here’s a taste.

JaniceAndJeffrey_106_MPX-1920x1080

IFC: How would you describe Janice and Jeffrey to a fancy network executive you met in an elevator?

Mollie & Matteo: Janice and Jeffrey is about a married couple experiencing intimacy issues but who don’t have a clue it’s because they are gay. Their oblivion makes them even more endearing.  Their total lack of awareness provides for a buffet of comedy.

IFC: What’s your origin story? How did you two people meet and how long have you been working together?

Mollie: We met at a dive bar in Wrigley Field Chicago. It was a show called Entertaining Julie… It was a cool variety scene with lots of talented people. I was doing Janice one night and Matteo was doing an impression of Liza Minnelli. We sort of just fell in love with each other’s… ACT! Matteo made the first move and told me how much he loved Janice and I drove home feeling like I just met someone really special.

IFC: How would Janice describe Jeffrey?

Mollie: “He can paint, cook homemade Bolognese, and sing Opera. Not to mention he has a great body. He makes me feel empowered and free. He doesn’t suffocate me with attention so our love has room to breath.”

IFC: How would Jeffrey describe Janice?

Matteo: “Like a Ford. Built to last.”

IFC: Why do you think the world is ready for this series?

Mollie & Matteo: Our current political world is mirroring and reflecting this belief that homosexuality is wrong. So what better time for satire. Everyone is so pro gay and equal rights, which is of course what we want, too. But no one is looking at middle America and people actually in the closet. No one is saying, hey this is really painful and tragic, and sitting with that. Having compassion but providing the desperate relief of laughter…This seemed like the healthiest, best way to “fight” the gay rights “fight”.

IFC: Hummus is hilarious. Why is it so funny?

Mollie: It just seems like something people take really seriously, which is funny to me. I started to see it in a lot of lesbians’ refrigerators at a time. It’s like observing a lesbian in a comfortable shoe. It’s a language we speak. Pass the Hummus. Turn on the Indigo Girls would ya?

See the whole season of Janice and Jeffrey right now on IFC’s Comedy Crib.

Watch More
IFC-Die-Hard-Dads

Die Hard Dads

Inspiration For Die Hard Dads

Die Hard is on IFC all Father's Day Long

Posted by on
Photo Credit: Everett Collection, GIPHY

Yippee ki-yay, everybody! It’s time to celebrate the those most literal of mother-effers: dads!

And just in case the title of this post left anything to the imagination, IFC is giving dads balls-to-the-wall ’80s treatment with a glorious marathon of action trailblazer Die Hard.

There are so many things we could say about Die Hard. We could talk about how it was comedian Bruce Willis’s first foray into action flicks, or Alan Rickman’s big screen debut. But dads don’t give a sh!t about that stuff.

No, dads just want to fantasize that they could be deathproof quip factory John McClane in their own mundane lives. So while you celebrate the fathers in your life, consider how John McClane would respond to these traditional “dad” moments…

Wedding Toasts

Dads always struggle to find the right words of welcome to extend to new family. John McClane, on the other hand, is the master of inclusivity.
Die Hard wedding

Using Public Restrooms

While nine out of ten dads would rather die than use a disgusting public bathroom, McClane isn’t bothered one bit. So long as he can fit a bloody foot in the sink, he’s G2G.
Die Hard restroom

Awkward Dancing

Because every dad needs a signature move.
Die Hard dance

Writing Thank You Notes

It can be hard for dads to express gratitude. Not only can McClane articulate his thanks, he makes it feel personal.
Die Hard thank you

Valentine’s Day

How would John McClane say “I heart you” in a way that ain’t cliche? The image speaks for itself.
Die Hard valentines

Shopping

The only thing most dads hate more than shopping is fielding eleventh-hour phone calls with additional items for the list. But does McClane throw a typical man-tantrum? Nope. He finds the words to express his feelings like a goddam adult.
Die Hard thank you

Last Minute Errands

John McClane knows when a fight isn’t worth fighting.
Die Hard errands

Sneaking Out Of The Office Early

What is this, high school? Make a real exit, dads.
Die Hard office

Think you or your dad could stand to be more like Bruce? Role model fodder abounds in the Die Hard marathon all Father’s Day long on IFC.

Watch More
IFC-revenge-of-the-nerds-group

Founding Farters

Know Your Nerd History

Revenge of the Nerds is on IFC.

Posted by on
Photo Credit: Everett Collection, GIFs via Giphy

That we live in the heyday of nerds is no hot secret. Scientists are celebrities, musicians are robots and late night hosts can recite every word of the Silmarillion. It’s too easy to think that it’s always been this way. But the truth is we owe much to our nerd forebearers who toiled through the jock-filled ’80s so that we might take over the world.

geowash_flat

Our humble beginnings are perhaps best captured in iconic ’80s romp Revenge of the Nerds. Like the founding fathers of our Country, the titular nerds rose above their circumstances to culturally pave the way for every Colbert and deGrasse Tyson that we know and love today.

To make sure you’re in the know about our very important cultural roots, here’s a quick download of the vengeful nerds without whom our shameful stereotypes might never have evolved.

Lewis Skolnick

The George Washington of nerds whose unflappable optimism – even in the face of humiliating self-awareness – basically gave birth to the Geek Pride movement.

Gilbert Lowe

OK, this guy is wet blanket, but an important wet blanket. Think Aaron Burr to Lin-Manuel Miranda’s Hamilton. His glass-mostly-empty attitude is a galvanizing force for Lewis. Who knows if Lewis could have kept up his optimism without Lowe’s Debbie-Downer outlook?

Arnold Poindexter

A music nerd who, after a soft start (inside joke, you’ll get it later), came out of his shell and let his passion lead instead of his anxiety. If you played an instrument (specifically, electric violin), and you were a nerd, this was your patron saint.

Booger

A sex-loving, blunt-smoking, nose-picking guitar hero. If you don’t think he sounds like a classic nerd, you’re absolutely right. And that’s the whole point. Along with Lamar, he simultaneously expanded the definition of nerd and gave pre-existing nerds a twisted sort of cred by association.

Lamar Latrell

Black, gay, and a crazy good breakdancer. In other words, a total groundbreaker. He proved to the world that nerds don’t have a single mold, but are simply outcasts waiting for their moment.

Ogre

Exceedingly stupid, this dumbass was monumental because he (in a sequel) leaves the jocks to become a nerd. Totally unheard of back then. Now all jocks are basically nerds.

Well, there they are. Never forget that we stand on their shoulders.

Revenge of the Nerds is on IFC all month long.

Watch More
Powered by ZergNet