- [Narrator] This video is brought to you by Surfshark VPN.
(upbeat music)
What's up guys?
Michael here to talk about the patron saint,
of blowing stuff up.
(loud explosions)
Michael Bay occupies a weird space within cinema.
His movies typically rake in the box at the box office,
yet critical discussion of his work,
tends to question Bay's directorial merit.
You could argue that his films,
are somewhat meaningless and vapid,
and plenty of people do,
but a sizable audience keeps coming back,
for that Bay-fied explosion, happy glory.
So, what's going on here?
How did we end up in a world,
with five Transformers movies?
Is Michael Bay just a glorified popcorn salesman,
or are there deeper things at play in his work?
Strap in people,
we're going deep or dumb on Michael Bay.
But before we dive in,
I wanna talk about this video sponsor,
Surfshark VPN.
Surfshark VPN keeps your data safe,
as you navigate the internet,
thanks to secure protocols,
and uncrackable encryption.
Among the many advantages,
of using a secure VPN like Surfshark,
is that the Internet can't figure out,
where in the world I'm located.
So, that means I can shop for plane tickets,
without getting price gouged,
all by connecting to VPNs in different countries,
until I track down the best deal.
It's also super handy for watching movies and TV shows,
that have been released in other countries.
All you need is one subscription,
to cover all of your favorite devices like your laptop,
PlayStation, Xbox, Amazon Fire Stick and beyond,
and on your go-to apps like Firefox and Chrome,
which also have options for a VPN.
Click the link of the description,
and use the promo code 'Wisecrack' to get 83% off,
plus three extra months for free.
Go to surfshark.deals/wisecrack,
or hit the link in the description.
Protect yourself online,
and download Surfshark VPN today.
And now, back to the show.
Now, opinions on Michael Bay are a dime a dozen.
On one side you've got the haters.
Often critics like Macro Mode,
who reviewed transformers four,
in the form of a YouTube video.
in which he bangs his head against a wall.
Don't forget that time,
Roger Ebert suggested you skip,
what was then the most recent Michael bay film,
and instead go into the kitchen,
cue up a male choir singing the music of hell,
and get a kid to start banging pots and pans together,
then close your eyes and use your imagination.
I missed the days we used to have real critics.
Indeed critics have made a tidy little side hustle,
out of (indistinct) on Bay,
but is the vitriol overdone.
After all, there is enjoyment to be found in his work.
He's a technical master,
who can cox undeniably hardy visual (indistinct)
In fact, this is what informs the probate crowd,
who argue that because Bay has an identifiable,
and consistent style,
he should be considered an auteur.
Auteur theory essentially developed,
because French film theorists wanted to elevate film,
to the Heights of, say, literature,
by positing the director of a film,
as being the equivalent to the author of a book,
and warning,
if you bring up auteur theory at a party,
you do risk being considered and sufferable.
(gentle music)
Auteur theories believe that the best works of cinema,
should necessarily show the personal stamp of the director,
via a signature style as well as recurrent visual,
and narrative preoccupations.
Popular auteurs include Hitchcock, Campion and Del Toro,
but as we'll explore, Bay doesn't quite fit in this club.
Now bay might take issue,
with the very premise of this video.
Of Hollywood he said, "What we do is not brain surgery.
We are entertainers, plain and simple,
and we're responsible to bring that money back,
to make a profit."
He's also noted that these are just (beep) movies.
They're supposed to be fun.
Rather than defending the intellectual,
or artistic narrative of films,
the way some of his fans might,
Bay seems to express a willful detachment,
from any notions of ideology or meaning in his work.
According to him, a Michael Bay film is just entertainment,
just a product and we should treat it as such,
but it doesn't quite work like that.
It's basically impossible to tell a cinematic story,
without ideology creeping in,
whether or not that ideology is intentional.
Film critics Jean-Louis Comolli and Jean Naponi,
once claimed that every film is political,
for this exact reason.
Blockbuster films like Bay's,
have huge amounts of money and resources,
poured into their production,
and the people pouring that money in,
typically have certain ideological expectations.
More esoterically Camolli and Naponi,
argued that the very nature of Cinema itself,
meant that ideology is inescapable.
To them the medium of film,
is an artistic rendering of reality,
complete with all the biases and beliefs of the creators,
so, depending on things like where a movie was made,
and the background of the director,
certain ideologies are sure to be represented,
in the movie in some way.
This means that not only can we potentially glean,
a director's personal ideology via their work,
but arguably more importantly,
we can look at the output of broader groups of creators,
to define dominant ideologies.
So, it's worth asking,
is there a dominant American ideology via Hollywood films?
Hail to the Star Spangled. Yeah.
The idea of a national cinema,
continues to be explored deeply in film studies,
and kinda uses the same basis as auteur theory.
By looking at blockbuster movies,
for common themes, sentiments, tropes and archetypes,
we can gain an idea of a broader American ideology.
That means the values that are deemed positive or negative,
and the aspirations encouraged by the culture at large.
And Bay's work is arguably a pure uncensored example,
of American national cinema.
His movies do present an ideology,
but one that Bay doesn't necessarily own.
In making movies that appeal,
to the largest possible audience,
and disavowing meaning in the process,
Bay leaves the door wide open,
for the dominant American ideology,
to Walton take it shoes off, pop open a can of Budweiser,
and make itself right at home.
This goes a long way in explaining Bay's work,
namely, his films are reflections,
of the most desirable aspects within American culture,
and the commodified state of them.
Fittingly, Bay styles developed in advertisement,
leading to a lingering habit of objectification.
Plenty of directors get critiqued for objectifying women,
but bay doesn't stop there.
He objectifies everything.
If an expensive supercar is in the scene,
his camera will glide along its angles,
highlighting its form and presence.
Same with military hardware like fighter jets,
and state-of-the-art guns,
Bay's camera will focus on them purely as objects,
rather than the things they represent,
and speaking of shiny objects,
the Bay's camera often focuses,
on various parts of conventionally attractive women's bodies
before glancing to see,
if there's any hint of emotion on their faces.
By way of Box Office driven pragmatism,
Bay's work is filled with symbols of the American ideal,
presented as unironically desirable.
Of course, it's possible to reflect,
the ideals of American culture,
without straight up endorsing them,
and plenty of directors are making that commentary,
arguably minus the straight objectification.
The key is the relevance of the imagery or sound,
to the narrative being told.
Critic, Kristin Thompson, explored this,
through the idea of cinematic excess.
Here, excess means any stylistic elements,
that are included in a movie,
seemingly for their own sake rather than to contribute,
to the movies overarching message.
These elements don't deepen the narrative,
but their presence necessarily affects narrative meaning,
simply by way of being there.
So, when Bay includes say a scene,
where some random one percenter,
shows off his car collection and leaches on a woman.
- [Man] Look at them curves.
Elegant, isn't it?
Beautiful.
- Sensual.
Built to evoke the body of the ideal woman.
- [Narrator] Or when the camera blatantly lingers,
a little too long on a corporate logo,
or when a big robot takes a fat piss on John Turturro,
you get classic examples of cinematic excess.
- (exclaims) Hey.
- [Narrator] Thompson thought that this kind of excess,
comes from a director's personal taste or preoccupations,
like JJ Abrams with lens flare or Tarantino with feet,
but interestingly, most of the excess in Bay's work,
comes from the capitalist pragmatism,
that defines his approach to filmmaking,
because, again, Bay seems driven by the Box Office,
more than anything else.
Bay's cinematic excess does clash,
with the apparent narrative envision of a storytelling,
like when he shows American GIs whooping and hollering,
at their kills during the attack on Pearl Harbor.
(soldier shouting indistinctly)
When he make sure we see the,
and we're quoting here, "Enemies scrotum of a Decepticon."
- I am directly below enemy's scrotum.
- These classic Bay moments of excess,
are rooted in how the American ideal,
expects people to behave.
All of Bay's leading men are templates,
for the ideals that American culture,
broadly tells men they need to aspire to,
and all of bays leading women are...
Nope, wait. That's right, there aren't any.
with the rare exception of ambulance,
where Eiza Gonzalez actually gets to do some stuff,
actresses in Bay films,
are pretty much just treated as eye candy,
reinforcing American feminine ideals,
of,
banging (indistinct) and silky hair.
Other themes include distrust of government,
lionization of military force,
indulgent product placement and gun fetishes.
All of these textual hallmarks,
are direct mirrors of the dominant American ideology.
They're present in a Bay movie,
regardless of their objective relevance,
to the narrative of the individual films,
and Bay's narratives will invariably yet,
some point or another halt to highlight them.
In this way and through the lens of Thompson,
Bay's movies are defined,
by a kind of compromised cinematic excess,
that is unmistakably American.
Notably the standard fair American excess,
is what we reckon precludes Bay,
from being considered an auteur.
While he obviously has a signature style,
and aesthetic preoccupations,
any messaging in his work lacks a sense of conviction.
So, Bay's films are ideologically,
and stylistically compromised.
Surely that gives us a definitive answer.
Well, not quite,
because there's still the issue,
of Bay's undeniable skill as a director.
Even Roger Ebert, aforementioned Bay critic,
recognized to the director's technical chops,
and proficiency with special effects,
This more than anything else,
is arguably what draws people to Bay's films.
His visceral kinetic style of action,
sucks us in through rapid fire cutting,
displacing us in time and space,
in a way that prioritizes how the scene makes us feel,
rather than our comprehensive understanding,
of the exact events unfolding.
A scholar, Steven Cefiro, explains,
this makes Bay a prime example of post-continuity cinema,
which takes inspiration,
from other art forms like video games.
It basically abandons classic editing conventions,
that typically help the audience understand,
the spatial temporality of the actions on screen.
As Cefiro puts it,
Bay is the new D.W. Griffith or the anti Griffith,
as he mixes and matches shots,
with no concern for traditional articulations,
of spatial and temporal continuity.
Bay's camera never stops whirling around the carnage,
in ways that flouts standard filmmaking conventions,
and the elements within the frame,
are a flurry of movement too.
The end result, Bayhem, is chaotic impressionistic action,
that defies comprehension.
In fact, this echoes the main issue people have with Bay,
that it's just overwhelming cinematic noise,
but opposed to the unconsidered ideology,
present in Bay's work,
his action sequences are a genuine directorial expression,
used to convey the reflexive adrenaline clouded state,
that true danger puts us in as human beings.
A couple of these with the bombastic visuals,
that comprise Bay's action sequences,
and you get not only some of the most striking spectacles,
in all of blockbuster (indistinct),
but also something that hits,
on deeper philosophical questions,
of the things that captivate us visually.
We can understand this with the help of Immanuel Kant,
who thought there are two main types of things,
that give us visual pleasure,
beauty and the sublime.
Kant saw beauty as dealing,
with the contemplation of order and harmony,
appreciated for its own sake,
rather than for its utility or value,
like a string of symmetrical pearls,
the gentle swirls of a corkshell,
or fresh basket of tater tots,
beautiful things make us feel.
Take the delicate textures in light,
in Sofia Coppola in the Virgin Suicides,
or the set design of Grand Budapest hotel.
These are beautiful and their beauty can be comprehended.
The sublime on the other hand,
deals with the awe, inspiring and the dangerous,
viewed from a place of safety.
It's the things that we can't comprehend,
because our brains are just too damn limited,
or in other words,
sublimity means the absence of order or comprehension.
Sublime fine art,
a favorite of the romantic era,
might depict an epic military battle,
or a ship fighting its way through the angry sea.
Through Kant's aesthetic lens,
Bayhem is a prime example of the supply,
from giant explosions to highway spinning car wrecks,
to New York city being decimated by meteors,
the situations that Bay depict in his action scenes,
represent levels of destruction,
that if faced in real life,
would be so extensive in their impact,
that we couldn't possibly reckon with it.
And crucially, the way in which Bay present these situations
is geared towards non-comprehension,
potentially leaving us with a gut feeling,
of excitement or dread,
that has no discernible point of origin within the film.
It is, as we think the kids would say,
though we could be wrong, a whole ass vibe,
and we aren't alone in thinking so.
'New York Times' critic A.O. Scott,
had this to say about Bay's latest film, Ambulance.
Bay's virtuosic flouting of the laws of physics,
probability and narrative coherence,
is meant to catapult you into a zone of sublimity,
where melodramatic emotion and adrenalized excitement,
fuse into a whole new kind of sensation.
Big, operatic feelings are both heightened and enlightened,
by propulsive speed and overscaled action.
Political theorist William E. Connolly,
explores the wider overall link,
between the sublime (indistinct) style of filmmaking,
and the ever increasing speed of capitalism,
and consumerism in our modern lives.
Film, to Connolly, is a useful tool for us,
to examine human methods of perception and conception,
i.e. how we view and think about stuff that we see.
In this, the techniques used by directors,
to evoke emotion, generate engagement,
and affect the way we think of the narrative,
are analogous to the techniques of systems,
like capitalism and consumerism.
Connelly states that increasingly,
contemporary film is geared more,
towards what he calls the infraconscious.
This is the realm of reflex and impression,
that Bay's filmmaking does so well,
and there's nothing inherently sinister,
about a sublime action film.
But there is an issue here,
namely, that Bay's American excess and his sublime Bayhem,
aren't mutually exclusive.
His movies don't stop evoking the American ideal,
just because there's a chaotic action sequence.
Both are intertwined,
and Bay seems to sense this intuitively.
His action scenes often take little micro breaks,
to let the audience breathe,
probably in attempts to alleviate tension or provide relief.
Yet, this is where the American excess,
reliably creeps back in.
We still get sexy shots of super cars,
pulled right out of commercials or weird cringey jokes-
- If stop covering you it means I'm dead.
But that ain't gonna happen.
- [Narrator] Or Macho Man being almost comically duly,
often all at once,
and for Connolly, this connection might be exactly in tune,
with what he's diagnosed,
about the overall direction of filmmaking.
He argues that the hyper speed of modern film,
is a direct reflection of the ever-growing ways,
in which capitalism and consumerism,
seek to overwhelm us as human beings.
If you've ever been to Time Square,
you'd probably catch our drift.
The goal of a flashing neon sign,
or a billboard the size of a building is,
like a Michael Bay film to completely inundate our senses.
But of course not quite so much,
that we get too overwhelmed,
to run into the M and M store,
and buy a lifetime supply of blue chocolates.
Now, we're not saying that there's some,
conspiracy theory subliminal messaging going on here,
or that Michael Bay is a deep state agent,
brainwashing us into supporting America.
It's more of an unintended effect of his visual aesthetic,
and by splicing in these moments,
that positively reflect American excess,
as he learned to do in advertising right into sequences,
that favor gut reactions over heady contemplation,
we're primed to view both in the same way.
When our senses are overwhelmed,
we stop trying to follow the action,
and instead rely on the content's impressionistic qualities.
Using Thompson's thesis, you could persuasively argue,
that the chaos of Bayhem,
primes us to ingest the dominant ideology,
of American capitalism at hand,
without the benefit of critical distance.
So, with everything we've explored about Bay's work,
from the pragmatic Box Office driven ideology,
to the very American form of cinematic excess,
to the purposely incomprehensible editing style,
what are we left with?
Well, we think there's a way to recognize all of this,
and still enjoy Bay's films.
What if we view Bay's work as a way for us to engage,
with the realities about the systems we live within,
constantly prime must to stick to the status quo,
or how ideologies are malleable things,
that will seep into any gaps they can,
informing our values and biases.
In not resembling real life in any way, shape or form,
might the films of Michael Bay be able to teach us,
how to live a little more thoughtfully,
in our late capitalist hellscape?
And in that way, Michael Bay,
might just qualify as unintentionally deep,
whereas it's officially known "Oopsy Daisy Smart."
But what do you guys think?
Is analyzing Bay's films even worth it?
Or should we listen to the man himself,
and just accept them as innocent mindless entertainment.
Sound off in the comments,
hit subscribe like it's a big red demolition button,
and don't forget to ring that bell.
It's always a big thanks to our patrons for all your support
and be sure to check out,
the new features available on our Patreon page,
and as always, thanks for watching. Later.
(upbeat music)