Poll

Is Michael Bay an auteur

Yes - All of his films bear his indelible stamp.
No - You have to make great films to be an auteur.
Maybe - I can't find any signitaure themes.
He is a Hack

Author Topic: Is Michael Bay an auteur?  (Read 9126 times)

oneaprilday

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 13742
  • "What we see and what we seem are but a dream."
    • A Journal of Film
Re: Is Michael Bay an auteur?
« Reply #60 on: June 09, 2010, 01:29:17 PM »
So does this follow? : If you believe all filmmakers are auteurs, then you don't subscribe to the auteur theory. ??

Hmmm, I don't think that would be the case. Yes, I believe all are auteurs, but that holds true with auteur theory in the sense that I believe no matter what every director has their own mark that they make on their films, their own vision that they want to put forth. To use an example, I don't particularly care for QT, but I can see in his films that he is clearly putting his own vision into his films. The same holds true for Uwe Boll, Chris Nolan, Hayao Miyazaki, basically any director I have ever seen a work from. Some may make great films, others may make films I don't like, but I think each of them has their own imprint they make on their work and thus that holds true to auteur theory. Does that make sense OAD, I think I'm beginning to even confuse myself.  ???
What you said makes sense. But I'm confused generally about what auteur theory is and how to apply it, or more specifically, why it's useful.

(It seems mostly useful for starting arguments among cinephiles - no one seems to agree on anything any time the theory comes up. :) )

¡Keith!

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 26763
  • Bitch, I been around since LimeWire.
Re: Is Michael Bay an auteur?
« Reply #61 on: June 09, 2010, 02:41:44 PM »
Just like any other way of approaching academic study, its just one way of looking at things, of approaching the subject of FILM.  Instead of looking at periods, movements ect, you look at a single person's body of work and how their vision infects their film - regardless of current events, studio interference, actors or writers involvement ect.  Like Matt said he believes in co-authorship – something that would be mostly rejected by an auteur theorist.

The French thought the writers irrelevant (film=visual medium) and actors were tools in the director’s arsenal (cuz Hitch said so).  Basically there is one person who authors the film (usually a director, occasionally a producer, often Gaga) and the rest of the production process is simply how they manage to go about that authorship.

Dave the Necrobumper

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 11064
  • My tinypic changed so no avatar for a little while
Re: Is Michael Bay an auteur?
« Reply #62 on: June 09, 2010, 03:29:09 PM »
So if Auteur Theory is the investigation of a director's style/imprint across the body of their work. All directors will leave some kind of imprint of themselves in there body of work. Therefore Director = Auteur, so Auteur is a different word for director, but Auteur Theory is a useful study tool.

¡Keith!

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 26763
  • Bitch, I been around since LimeWire.
Re: Is Michael Bay an auteur?
« Reply #63 on: June 09, 2010, 03:42:18 PM »
So if Auteur Theory is the investigation of a director's style/imprint across the body of their work. All directors will leave some kind of imprint of themselves in there body of work. Therefore Director = Auteur, so Auteur is a different word for director, but Auteur Theory is a useful study tool.

Not sure where the thinking is but I would say there exists the possiblility of Strong Auteurs (writer/directors with many signatures, directors who's signatures can be seen through the haze, rigid athoritarianism in the production process), Weak Auteurs (fewer signatures, more taste for variety or who aren't as assertive in expressing themselves, more willing to collaborate) and Non-auteurs (director's for hire, immersive collaborators, allan smithee films, the talentless or timid).

Dave the Necrobumper

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 11064
  • My tinypic changed so no avatar for a little while
Re: Is Michael Bay an auteur?
« Reply #64 on: June 09, 2010, 03:43:32 PM »
So if Auteur Theory is the investigation of a director's style/imprint across the body of their work. All directors will leave some kind of imprint of themselves in there body of work. Therefore Director = Auteur, so Auteur is a different word for director, but Auteur Theory is a useful study tool.

Not sure where the thinking is but I would say there exists the possiblility of Strong Auteurs (writer/directors with many signatures, directors who's signatures can be seen through the haze, rigid athoritarianism in the production process), Weak Auteurs (fewer signatures, more taste for variety or who aren't as assertive in expressing themselves, more willing to collaborate) and Non-auteurs (director's for hire, immersive collaborators, allan smithee films, the talentless or timid).

What I am saying you could just as easily replace the word Auteur with Director.

¡Keith!

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 26763
  • Bitch, I been around since LimeWire.
Re: Is Michael Bay an auteur?
« Reply #65 on: June 09, 2010, 03:48:01 PM »
So if Auteur Theory is the investigation of a director's style/imprint across the body of their work. All directors will leave some kind of imprint of themselves in there body of work. Therefore Director = Auteur, so Auteur is a different word for director, but Auteur Theory is a useful study tool.

Not sure where the thinking is but I would say there exists the possiblility of Strong Auteurs (writer/directors with many signatures, directors who's signatures can be seen through the haze, rigid athoritarianism in the production process), Weak Auteurs (fewer signatures, more taste for variety or who aren't as assertive in expressing themselves, more willing to collaborate) and Non-auteurs (director's for hire, immersive collaborators, allan smithee films, the talentless or timid).

What I am saying you could just as easily replace the word Auteur with Director.

sure but that woulnd't be nearly as hughtilly worded. MISE-EN-SCÉNE!

Dave the Necrobumper

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 11064
  • My tinypic changed so no avatar for a little while
Re: Is Michael Bay an auteur?
« Reply #66 on: June 09, 2010, 03:51:40 PM »
So if Auteur Theory is the investigation of a director's style/imprint across the body of their work. All directors will leave some kind of imprint of themselves in there body of work. Therefore Director = Auteur, so Auteur is a different word for director, but Auteur Theory is a useful study tool.

Not sure where the thinking is but I would say there exists the possiblility of Strong Auteurs (writer/directors with many signatures, directors who's signatures can be seen through the haze, rigid athoritarianism in the production process), Weak Auteurs (fewer signatures, more taste for variety or who aren't as assertive in expressing themselves, more willing to collaborate) and Non-auteurs (director's for hire, immersive collaborators, allan smithee films, the talentless or timid).

What I am saying you could just as easily replace the word Auteur with Director.

sure but that woulnd't be nearly as hughtilly worded. MISE-EN-SCÉNE!
Yes

mañana

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 20871
  • Check your public library
Re: Is Michael Bay an auteur?
« Reply #67 on: June 09, 2010, 03:51:49 PM »
Like Matt said he believes in co-authorship – something that would be mostly rejected by an auteur theorist.
Not that I completely reject the theory, I'm just not dogmatic about it.

sure but that woulnd't be nearly as hughtilly worded. MISE-EN-SCÉNE!
:D
There's no deceit in the cauliflower.

sdedalus

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 16589
  • I have a prestigious blog, sir!
    • The End of Cinema
Re: Is Michael Bay an auteur?
« Reply #68 on: June 09, 2010, 04:48:06 PM »
So if Auteur Theory is the investigation of a director's style/imprint across the body of their work. All directors will leave some kind of imprint of themselves in there body of work. Therefore Director = Auteur, so Auteur is a different word for director, but Auteur Theory is a useful study tool.

Not all directors make personal films in a personal style.  This is the issues with Bay: while he has a clearly distinct visual style, is it actually an expression of something about the way Bay sees the world, or is it a cynical exercise in audience pandering?

Keith's articulating an extreme version of the theory on a couple of ends.  Auteurists certainly don't believe writers or actors are irrelevant (see Jonathan Rosenbaum's argument that Taxi Driver has four auteurs: Scorsese, Schrader, DeNiro and Bernard Herrmann).  Nor would they argue that every director is an auteur.  One of the main games auteurists play is sorting out the hack directors from the competent but impersonal directors (metteurs en scene) from those directors with a strong personal vision/style/obsession.

Also, the theory is not the end of the conversation.  It functions as an organizing principle, but is not, in itself, criticism.  The important thing about Andrew Sarris's The American Cinema is its organization by director.  But the great thing is that Sarris uses the organization to discuss each directors work in the context of all their other work, in terms of both visual style and thematic concerns.
The End of Cinema

Seattle Screen Scene

"He was some kind of a man. What does it matter what you say about people?"

Tim

  • Elite Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2400
  • Be excellent to each other
Re: Is Michael Bay an auteur?
« Reply #69 on: June 09, 2010, 09:25:43 PM »
^^^^^^ That! ^^^^^^

and just to throw one more idea into the mix....Schreiber Theory (it's german for author, instead of french) - which refers to the role of the screenwriter as the principal author (instead of the director). When applying this to someone like Charlie Kaufman it is very easy to see how the screenwriter is the principal author. If Michael Bay were to direct a Charlie Kaufman screenplay it would have a much higher chance of being more brilliant than any of his previous work.

Schreiber theory may also account for the films that ForHam is defending as more interesting......
"Only cinema narrows its concern down to its content, that is to its story. It should, instead, concern itself with its form, its structure." Peter Greenaway