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"?
