Open Forum Friday: Is Michael Bay an Auteur?

Posted by on April 26th, 2013   Filed under: Open Forum Friday

openforummichaelbay

With the release of Pain & Gain this weekend, it seems like an appropriate time to continue a discussion that was sparked on last week’s podcast about the definition of an auteur and whether or not Michael Bay fits the bill. Auteur theory is a highfalutin way of looking at films as art that essentially states that the director is the most important creative voice in shaping that work of art. This came out of the French New Wave and was a reaction to the view that film is a team effort and an industrial process that strips out any and all personal touches. However, in order to be considered a true auteur, a director typically needs to demonstrate a distinguishable personal style and a deeper meaning to their works.

At this point, it’s no secret that Michael Bay is a divisive filmmaker. His movies are usually condemned by critics and yet they deliver excitement and thrills and (with the exception of maybe The Island) they almost always make a huge return on their investment. Michael Bay’s success and technical competence are not really up for debate here, but the question is whether or not he is a true visionary, artist and auteur. His movies definitely have a look and a feel that are his own, but is there anything going on underneath the surface? Pain & Gain seems like it might be the first Michael Bay movie that genuinely has something to say. What do you think? Does Michael Bay deserve more respect as an artist or is he nothing more than a very successful Hollywood jobber? Is there more to movies like Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen and Pearl Harbor than just giant robots and explosions? Do you consider Michael Bay to be an auteur? Give us your thoughts here on Open Forum Friday.



  • Rick Vance

    Of course he is.

    I would actually call into question what Sean said about the bigger budgets being harder to parse the Auteurs from.

    Being an auteur on a small budget film in which you do everything for is easy. Being on a gigantic budget film and having your personal stamp still be the most prominent thing, that is something that very few people can do. Bay is a perfect example as is Roland Emmerich.

  • scott

    Oh, auteur theory. Sigh.

  • scott

    Mis-en-scene makes sense as a topic of film discussion to me, but auteur theory just seems like total nonsense. To each his own. Yeah, I’m the guy who wrote that Junk Mail back when Greg was still around. Ah, the good old days!

  • kyri

    I guess he is the Jeff Koons of Filmaking..

  • For me, he is the worst filmmaker working today. To answer your question… yes, he’s an auteur.

    He has a visual style that is definitely his own that you would know by a frame that it’s his film. Even through his awful editing and shooting style, you can easily tell by his film. Even in the stuff he puts in like machoism and bad special effects that look highly expensive. He is an auteur but one of the worst. The guy doesn’t know how to shoot something for more than 10-15 seconds. Can’t keep the camera still. He introduces women in a very chauvanistic manner. He’s definitely a scumbag.

  • I would say he’s more of a saboteur.

  • Bryan

    He auteur stop making such shitty movies. HAHAHAHAHA!

    huh…

  • Drew

    Well he doesn’t write the films, so I wouldn’t exactly call him the “author” of his movies. But his visual style is distinctive and he has a trademark goofy sense of humor so in a sense yes.

  • ProCynic

    To even imply this ‘Hack’ is in the same league as Charlie Chaplin, Stan ‘The Man’ Kubrick, Billy Wilder etc etc is an absolute insult, even thou I do enjoy his non Tranny movies :)

  • kent88

    Without question.

    But it’s also a question about personality for me. Your personality coming through via your work.

    IRL Bay loves banging super models, sport cars, Americana, guns, hanging out at the Playboy mansion, expensive clothes, fitness clubs etc.

    That sort of macho attitude comes through completely in his movies.

    By the way, I love this picture of Bay; http://www.popbunker.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/bay-character.jpg

  • Stinker

    From his first step on the „big“ Screen with the Playboy Video Centrefold „Kerri Kendall“ in 1990 till his opus “Transformers” he has shown a clear preference to “nice” Lady, also the size varies.

    He also appears to incl. in everything esp. every Plot a orgy of cars, also “nice” and “tuned”, like his ladies, who at least once crash into each other. No Body Orgy so far, but Shaia in training with the mighty Auteur Lars. So there is some hope for a Non Car Body orgy.

    Also he turns everything into a haze of camera Movement, where nobody knows where everything else is, and to be honest, nobody cares. Because of the cutting speed is so high, that turns into a blur.

    All in all, the man creates Movies which are unique, but this is also the case every pile of “shit” I dump in the toilet, this is also unique in its consistency and form.

  • Henrik

    Above average puns for this one.

    Michael Bay is an artist, he is the sort of artist Hollywood wants to create.

  • kyri

    Because he’s the artist Hollywood deserves, but not the one it needs right now…and so we’ll hunt him, because he can take it. Because he’s not an artist. He’s a silent guardian, a watchful protector…a dark side of the Moon.

  • kyri

    I know..

  • kyri

    last part should had been “an Auteur”

  • La Menthe

    The auteur theory is stupid. Firstly, all directors, after making a certain number of films, become distinct. So this means that it has nothing to do with good artistic skills — it is rather repetitive skills. Secondly, as I mentioned, being an auteur is many ways negative. A good artist is someone who is varied and makes different styles of films all the time, So that his creativity doesn’t stop. That being said, someone’s artistic touch opposed to their personal touch has its limits. You’ll still end up, after viewing several of the director’s films, with certain factors that will make you recognize the director’s “touch”.

    The auteur theory is also outdated and should be forgotten. The idea popped up at a time when directors were unknown and uniteresting to the audience. The theory was therefore introduced as a way of giving talented filmmakers some form of recognition. Obviously we’ve reached a point where the term should be put on the shelf and forgotten.

  • Theo

    Was never a big fan of Bay’s films….especially after that peice of shit called Tranformer 2, came out. The majority of the women always look like models, there’s always some African American stereotyping thrown in his films for comic relief, and his “American Patriotic” camera angles get on my nerves. His films do seem to sell like Roland Emmerich’s films; but he has just always seemed like a wannabe James Cameron. I wouldn’t that he would be considered the worst movie director, but I just don’t waist my coin, watching his films, cause I think…..well…..They’re Michael Bay films…..and I’m about 75-80% sure that I know what to expect if I’d watch it. The Island is surprisingly the only one of his films, I can actually sit through, but that’s it.

  • Lior

    If I recall correctly, the auteur theory came out of Truffaut’s and the rest of the French New Wave guys fascination with Hitchcock, from the time they were still working as movie critics. Here was a director with a distinct, unmistakable style and themes that were woven consistently throughout his work. It meant that whatever creative team the director would have around him, his film will still remain unmistakably HIS.

    The term was originally coined as an artistic concept which was applied to “quality cinema”, whatever that means. Ever since then it has expanded to include every director with a distinct style, even if his or hers body of work is not necessarily high art.

    By that definition, Michael Bay is definitely an auteur. It’s weird putting him under the same category as Hitchcock or Kubrick or even PT Anderson, but the fact remains that when you see a Michael Bay film you immediately know it’s his. Let’s just call him an action auteur, just like John Woo, for example.

  • bullet3

    “Let’s just call him an action auteur, just like John Woo, for example.” Except minus all the talent, but yes I agree otherwise

  • A discussion about auteur theory and not one mention of Tanantino? I’m impressed.

    I would disagree that Bay is an auteur simply because he has themes, visual styles, and a dumb sense of humor that he likes. That those things are present in his films is merely indicative that he’s a director. My understanding of auteur theory (which I agree is dumb altogether) is that the author is shaping the film in every stage of production: writing, directing, acting, editing, and composing. At this point I think Shane Carruth is a good example of this. His films (especially Upstream Color) are very much his own creative voice. Even David Fincher doesn’t really fit the auteur roll to me; he’s just an excellent director.

  • I believe auteur to mean that basically you can watch a film without knowing who the director is and without problem figure it out.

    Wes Anderson is probably the most obvious of choices. To say he’s not an auteur at this point is sheer stupidity. As would be someone like Almodovar.

    If you don’t think auteurs exist, you’re out of your mind.

    Shane Carruth? He has two movies that are quite different in tone and style. If he directs another film and you showed it to me without telling me it is a Carruth work, I doubt I would be able to pinpoint it.

  • Purely in visuals, yes.

    Like Sir Ridley Scott.

    Or Zack Snyder.