It is 2017, meaning we have been living in the world of Michael Bay's Transformers
It is 2017, meaning we have been living in the world of Michael Bay's Transformers for ten years.
OPTIMUS: Bumblebee! Stop lubricating the man!
Feels like yesterday.
2017 marks the 10th anniversary of the first Transformers movie.
This year we will see the fifth, meaning we have had, on average,
one Transformers movie every two years for the last ten, all of them directed by Michael Bay.
So 2017 seemed like the perfect time to start a project which I'd actually been wanting to make for a while now:
Studying the basic aspects of film studies and film theory
Studying the basic aspects of film studies and film theory using Michael Bay's Transformers.
This is why I was put here on this Earth.
People from both sides of the aisle, both fans of the film and people from the more academic side who aren't
terribly interested in textual analysis of "low art" have asked me, "Why Transformers?"
To which I say, aside from the surprising dearth of any real academic study on these movies,
considering how influential and lucrative they've been,
Transformers is rife for every kind of theoretical reading.
Auteur Theory.
BAY: They're so good, and there's a lot of bad in the world, and it's like, they're always doing the right thing.
Feminist Theory.
Critical Race Theory.
JAZZ: What's crackin', lil' bitches? This looks like a cool place to kick it.
Marxist Theory.
Queer Theory.
SKIDS: Ah, look who came sashaying back.
Transformers has everything!
But more noteworthy is the franchise's success.
The first four Transformers movies alone rank among the highest grossing franchises in film history...
SIMMONS: I am directly below the enemy scrotum.
...ranking just under the likes of Star Wars, the Lord of the Rings movies, the Marvel Cinematic Universe,
and James Bond, all of which had more installments.
The main difference here is that these franchises, while they might have had a dud here or there...
OBI WAN: You were the chosen one!
...are generally well-regarded and have a large body of critical and academic work studying them.
...are generally well-regarded and have a large body of critical and academic work studying them. Generally.
ANAKIN: I don't like sand.
This is important academic work, y'all. Be the change you want to see in the world.
So why do we write about film? Academic Bill Nichols describes...
According to academic Tim Corrigan, writing about film can serve several functions,
ranging from better understanding your own response to a movie,
comparing and contrasting one movie to others as a way of understanding them better,
and making connections between a movie and other areas of the culture
to illuminate both the culture and the movies it produces.
SAM: Mainstream media, Zack. They're lying to us, alright.
Film, like contemporary literature, represents the most artistically resourceful use of a given language,
in this case, an audiovisual language.
Great films are the modern vernacular equivalent of the ancient classics:
embodiment of the human capacity to imagine and create in a commonly understood language.
That last bit seems frivolous to some, but to me, it is probably the most important aspect of film study,
because movies, especially really popular movies that a lot of people see,
illuminate the dreams, desires, and values of a culture;
and if Transformers is one of the most lucrative film franchises of this generation...
...what that means merits discussion.
In the words of film historians Tim Corrigan and Nancy White, film studies is a critical discipline
that promotes serious reflection on the movies in the place of film and culture.
Film studies is an umbrella term under which all areas of film academia and film writing fall,
but an important thing to keep in mind is that each of these branches of study and theory are not islands;
they mesh, mix around, influence each other, and are influenced. You can't really do a Feminist reading
without influence from the Psychoanalytical side and the History side, for instance.
We all intrinsically know and understand what this scene is trying to get across to us,
but without the context of similar framing devices throughout film history,
paired with the Psychoanalytical subtext motivating it,
not only would we not have the words to describe the text, but the text itself would be meaningless
without the context of every movie and every story that had ever come before it.
To quote film historian Bill Nichols in the current state of film studies, the underlying assumptions are:
One,
OPTIMUS: Freedom is the right of all sentient beings.
Two,
...and who is watching it.
[SPEAKING IN SPANISH]
English, please.
And three,
KID: COOL, MOM!
My point here is that the term Film Studies is kind of meaningless outside of the umbrella term.
The real meat of Film Studies comes from the individual disciplines within that umbrella,
and that is why this is a 12-part miniseries instead of one.
and that is why this is a 12-ish part miniseries instead of one.
Now personally, I feel like the study of the technical aspects of film,
and the study of the sociological and theoretical aspects of film, are complementary,
and one cannot really exist without the other.
When you apply critical analysis to a work or body of work, It isn't so much about issuing a manifesto
as it is issuing a theory-based argument that then becomes a part of a greater discussion
These discussions can be fairly simple or more complex,
but the thing to remember about any form of critical analysis is that it is not set in stone.
These things change over time. They are fluid and always evolving.
And that's kind of the great thing about theory and critical analysis.
It's important to understand the language of the technical elements, as everything you see on the screen
is trying to convey something to you, be that an emotion, idea, or a theme, or a plot point, and so on.
While I will talk a little bit about film language, story structure, and the technical side of things,
the purpose of this series is to focus more on theoretical interpretations,
and if you've been around the Film Studies block a time or two and feel like this is a little bit "101"...
Then yeah,
Then yeah, yeah that,
Then yeah, yeah that, that is literally the point.
That certain films succeed, even flourish, where others don't, reflects something about us as a culture.
And I'm not trying to say that Transformers is something dark and devious.
I'm not interested in defending the existence of these movies, nor am I going to decry them
as the herald for the end of Western civilization.
No, I think even Transformers goes a little bit more complex than "movie good" or "movie bad".
What I do intend to argue against is the automatic dismissal of any serious discussion
on the topic of Transformers or Michael Bay.
And I do understand the impulse to stick your fingers in your ears and go "lalalalala" at the things you don't like,
but that does not mean that these things don't keep chugging along,
existing, influencing, and being influenced.
By dismissing Michael Bay, you also dismiss his worldview, the themes and ideas he pushes,
what resonates with his audience, and why.
In the words of Thomas Doherty, Hollywood cinema is less a window on the past, than a screen reflecting
the preoccupations of the beholder; a canvas for interpretive dexterity and polemical praxis.
GLEN: I ate the whole plate. The whole plate.
So with this series, we are going to delve into the Transformers franchise,
its influence and its influences, its meaning and its intent.
And you can say that this sort of thing is not worth your time,
but that does not mean that a lot of people are not seeing these movies, or that they're not important,
and it certainly does not mean that movies like this are going to go away anytime soon.