WEBVTT
00:00:05.671 --> 00:00:09.091
Hi. My name is Tony
and this is Every Frame a Painting.
00:00:09.330 --> 00:00:13.087
And I know exactly what you're thinking:
Why am I talking about this guy?
00:00:13.137 --> 00:00:14.987
— Oh my god, you're Michael Bay!
00:00:15.999 --> 00:00:18.509
— Oh my god, I am Michael Bay.
Because I don't like his films
00:00:18.524 --> 00:00:20.965
and yet I think it's crucial
to study them.
00:00:20.993 --> 00:00:22.015
Why?
00:00:22.016 --> 00:00:26.475
— ...and Paul, I think you have started
to watch WrestleMania on television...
00:00:26.477 --> 00:00:27.350
— Well, I...
00:00:27.373 --> 00:00:31.791
— Because you must not avert your eyes:
this is what is coming at us.
00:00:31.792 --> 00:00:35.413
this is what what television,
what a collective
00:00:35.429 --> 00:00:40.438
anonymous body of majority wants
to see on television.
00:00:40.741 --> 00:00:43.507
Like WrestleMania, like Anna Nicole Smith,
00:00:43.531 --> 00:00:46.179
like Jackass, Michael Bay has created
something.
00:00:46.179 --> 00:00:47.045
— Spectacle!
00:00:47.051 --> 00:00:51.710
It's what people want. The Romans new it,
Louis Quatorze knew it, Wolfowitz knows it.
00:00:51.728 --> 00:00:52.777
— One, two, three...
00:00:52.875 --> 00:00:54.875
Boom! Bayhem!!
00:00:55.093 --> 00:00:58.890
We may find it crass and vulgar,
but if we're going to make better movies,
00:00:58.898 --> 00:01:01.075
we have to understand
the images that are coming at us.
00:01:01.076 --> 00:01:02.232
— Hey, hey!!
00:01:02.262 --> 00:01:07.600
So let's talk about Bayhem.
Is it a unique use of film form?
00:01:09.537 --> 00:01:14.259
If you want to understand Michael Bay, one of
the best ways is to watch his copycats.
00:01:14.271 --> 00:01:16.858
Consider this shot from
'Battleship', which tries
00:01:16.884 --> 00:01:19.393
to do that circular camera
move he's famous for.
00:01:19.420 --> 00:01:21.862
Doesn't work here.
Why?
00:01:21.878 --> 00:01:25.402
It's actually really simple. First,
there's no background, except for blue sky.
00:01:25.405 --> 00:01:28.585
Without a background, we don't get parallax,
so the shot doesn't feel like it's moving.
00:01:28.593 --> 00:01:30.505
See the difference?
00:01:30.868 --> 00:01:35.177
On top of that, the lens is wrong. Bay frequently
shoots these shots with a telephoto lens,
00:01:35.188 --> 00:01:38.481
which compresses the space.
This makes the background whizz by.
00:01:38.552 --> 00:01:41.069
Third, the actor's just staring
and turning his head,
00:01:41.073 --> 00:01:43.772
but the key to the Bay version
is that the actors move vertically.
00:01:43.787 --> 00:01:44.980
Like here.
00:01:45.013 --> 00:01:46.132
And here.
00:01:46.171 --> 00:01:50.650
And last, the low angle is there to give us the
scale and slow motion is there to sell it.
00:01:50.974 --> 00:01:54.481
So what we have here in the Bay's shot
is multiple types of movement, integrated:
00:01:54.481 --> 00:01:57.420
movement of the camera,
movement of the background,
00:01:57.445 --> 00:01:59.873
movement of the actors,
expansion of time.
00:01:59.902 --> 00:02:03.236
Then they stand still and look
off-screen, creating stillness.
00:02:03.385 --> 00:02:08.161
Even though you're looking at a stationary
point in the frame, this shot feels huge.
00:02:08.186 --> 00:02:10.455
— Shit just got real.
00:02:11.870 --> 00:02:15.003
Breakdown any Michael Bay's shot
and that is basically what you will see:
00:02:15.008 --> 00:02:18.906
layers of depth, parallax, movement,
character and environment
00:02:18.926 --> 00:02:20.687
to give this sense of epicness.
00:02:20.846 --> 00:02:23.322
None of these techniques
is particularly unique.
00:02:23.341 --> 00:02:27.326
In fact, most cinematographers
will naturally create depth in their images
00:02:27.325 --> 00:02:29.317
and parallax, whenever the camera moves.
00:02:29.332 --> 00:02:31.425
And the Hero Shot is everywhere.
00:02:33.568 --> 00:02:37.347
What makes Bay unique is how many layers
and how complex the movement is.
00:02:37.377 --> 00:02:39.669
That doesn't make his shots
better, it just makes
00:02:39.694 --> 00:02:41.686
them more complicated
than the competition.
00:02:41.704 --> 00:02:44.060
That's why his frames seem to have
a lot of stuff going on.
00:02:44.074 --> 00:02:48.091
Lots of dust, dirt, smoke
or explosions between the layers.
00:02:48.135 --> 00:02:50.360
Also, lamp-posts.
00:02:52.003 --> 00:02:53.638
Lots of lamp-posts.
00:02:55.040 --> 00:02:58.390
If you go back to the first Bad Boys, you
can watch this from the opening credits.
00:02:58.403 --> 00:03:00.889
Here, the car moves one way,
the plane another,
00:03:00.896 --> 00:03:04.078
the lamp-posts are in frame for scale
and the camera is on a telephoto lens.
00:03:04.180 --> 00:03:07.461
Later in the film, you can see
the same compositional techinique.
00:03:07.596 --> 00:03:10.069
And when the explosions happen...
00:03:10.193 --> 00:03:13.242
Once you see this, it's much easier
to deconstruct his imagery
00:03:13.272 --> 00:03:14.870
and to see its limits.
00:03:15.067 --> 00:03:18.134
For instance, Bay doesn't distinguish
between when to do a shot
00:03:18.150 --> 00:03:20.551
and when not to do it. He'll
use the same camera movement,
00:03:20.578 --> 00:03:22.790
whether the charachter's
saying something important...
00:03:22.806 --> 00:03:25.226
— You have any money here in the States?
00:03:25.336 --> 00:03:27.003
... or total gibberish...
00:03:27.019 --> 00:03:29.765
— What did I say?!
Did you hear what I said?
00:03:29.795 --> 00:03:32.957
I heard what I said
'cause I was standing there when I said it.
00:03:32.980 --> 00:03:38.322
Every shot is designed for maximum visual
impact, regardless of whether it fits.
00:03:40.492 --> 00:03:44.110
But the Bay style also leads
to some fascinating visual ideas.
00:03:44.126 --> 00:03:46.230
How can you make something feel big?
00:03:46.252 --> 00:03:49.411
Well, you put lots of things
of varying size in the same shot
00:03:49.426 --> 00:03:51.537
and then you move the camera to emphasize.
00:03:51.552 --> 00:03:54.656
This is something "Jurassic Park" also
did very well.
00:03:54.862 --> 00:03:58.516
— Ah!
— It's... It's a dinosaur.
00:03:58.540 --> 00:04:00.961
Just as important is off-screen space.
00:04:00.969 --> 00:04:04.537
Notice here, this actor isn't looking
at the planes we see in the background.
00:04:04.552 --> 00:04:07.132
That means there's even
more planes we can't see.
00:04:07.153 --> 00:04:10.799
So while the shot feels huge,
it implies even more scale.
00:04:10.838 --> 00:04:13.432
How does a filmmaker come up
with images like this?
00:04:13.448 --> 00:04:16.464
In the case of Michael Bay, let's look
at one of his favorite films.
00:04:16.480 --> 00:04:19.308
"When you're a Jet,
you're a Jet all the way
00:04:19.331 --> 00:04:22.893
From your first cigarette
to your last dying day"
00:04:22.908 --> 00:04:25.942
There's a great New York Times interview
where he watches "West Side Story"
00:04:25.961 --> 00:04:28.798
and talks about how
this is a great shot
00:04:28.819 --> 00:04:30.701
and this is a great cut.
00:04:30.720 --> 00:04:33.799
He can't articulate why they're great,
other than "they're dynamic".
00:04:33.810 --> 00:04:36.617
But I think that's it:
when you put shots from West Side Story
00:04:36.639 --> 00:04:39.832
back to back with his work,
you can feel the similarities.
00:04:40.283 --> 00:04:43.112
I think Bay's goal is to create
what he thinks are good shots
00:04:43.136 --> 00:04:45.255
and connect them with
what he thinks are good cuts.
00:04:45.468 --> 00:04:48.629
If Howard Hawks defined a good movie
as three good scenes and no bad ones,
00:04:48.629 --> 00:04:50.556
Michael Bay seems to
think a good film
00:04:50.586 --> 00:04:53.862
is three thousand dynamic shots
and no static ones.
00:04:57.019 --> 00:05:01.074
Apart from West Side Story, Bay's biggest
influence is actually other blockbusters.
00:05:01.098 --> 00:05:04.584
He frequently borrows the same basic
vocabularies and other sequence.
00:05:04.607 --> 00:05:06.815
So something like this...
00:05:08.137 --> 00:05:10.338
... becomes this.
00:05:11.430 --> 00:05:14.495
You'll notice the tight shots
of the character become tighter.
00:05:14.521 --> 00:05:17.037
And the wide shots become wider.
00:05:17.050 --> 00:05:22.068
Everything gets more layers of motion,
but the basic vocabulary's the same.
00:05:23.812 --> 00:05:26.987
- I got him!
- Great, kid! Don't get cocky.
00:05:27.036 --> 00:05:29.346
And it's not just other people
he borrows from.
00:05:29.360 --> 00:05:31.829
Bay cannibalizes himself just as much.
00:05:31.853 --> 00:05:33.870
So this...
00:05:34.233 --> 00:05:36.657
... becomes this.
00:05:40.494 --> 00:05:43.023
You'll notice every motion
in the original shot.
00:05:43.048 --> 00:05:45.256
For instance, the camera
turning counter-clockwise,
00:05:45.264 --> 00:05:46.903
while the bomb turns clockwise —
00:05:46.913 --> 00:05:49.153
it's just cranked up in this version.
00:05:49.187 --> 00:05:51.966
— Autobots, I'm in pursuit.
00:05:51.975 --> 00:05:53.797
So what is Bayhem?
00:05:53.829 --> 00:05:56.130
It's the use of movement, composition
and fast editing
00:05:56.153 --> 00:05:58.257
to create a sense of epic scale.
00:05:58.278 --> 00:06:02.557
Each individual shot feels huge, but also
implies bigger things outside the frame.
00:06:02.564 --> 00:06:07.084
It stacks multiple layers of movement shot
either on a very long lens or a very wide one.
00:06:07.194 --> 00:06:09.728
It shows you a lot for just a moment
and then takes it away.
00:06:09.744 --> 00:06:13.380
You feel the overall motion,
but no grasp of anything concrete.
00:06:13.471 --> 00:06:16.920
And yet, it requires a lot of people
and integration to do this.
00:06:17.069 --> 00:06:20.880
But it's basically a variation on the
existing vocabulary of the action scene.
00:06:21.017 --> 00:06:25.825
Individual shots are a little dirtier, a little
shakier, more complex, few more layers.
00:06:25.845 --> 00:06:28.869
Then you cut it together faster
than the brain can register,
00:06:28.889 --> 00:06:30.929
but not faster than the eye can move.
00:06:30.954 --> 00:06:34.480
It's not revolutionary,
just the past with a bit of stank on it.
00:06:36.845 --> 00:06:39.807
If you want to see a more
etxreme version of similiar ideas,
00:06:39.923 --> 00:06:41.718
you can look at late-era Tony Scott.
00:06:42.062 --> 00:06:45.482
And if you wanna see a less cluttered
version, you can look at animation.
00:06:45.494 --> 00:06:47.450
Someone like Glen Keane.
00:06:47.461 --> 00:06:50.995
This is way more legible than what Bay does,
but the basic idea is the same:
00:06:50.995 --> 00:06:54.370
character, environment,
many layers, one epic sweep.
00:06:54.401 --> 00:06:56.401
The world feels huge.
00:06:58.773 --> 00:07:02.869
One of my favorite adaptations of the
Michael Bay style is actually shrinking it down.
00:07:02.875 --> 00:07:07.051
Ironically, Bayhem - which seems to have
developed from a kid blowing up his train set -
00:07:07.067 --> 00:07:09.228
is actually kind of charming when it's tiny.
00:07:09.523 --> 00:07:13.023
Instead of blowing up the world,
how about a small English town?
00:07:13.048 --> 00:07:14.648
— Swan!
00:07:21.550 --> 00:07:24.773
But in the end, I think the popularity of
this style is hugely important.
00:07:24.819 --> 00:07:27.273
Whether we like it or not,
the interesting thing here
00:07:27.274 --> 00:07:29.357
is that we are really
visually sophisticated
00:07:29.360 --> 00:07:31.449
and totally visually illiterate.
00:07:31.463 --> 00:07:34.829
We can process visual information
at a speed that wasn't common before,
00:07:34.843 --> 00:07:37.584
but thinking through what an image means...
00:07:37.607 --> 00:07:39.061
— This is not necessary!
00:07:39.084 --> 00:07:40.314
... not so much.
00:07:40.384 --> 00:07:41.942
And as Wernor Herzog put it:
00:07:41.958 --> 00:07:45.577
— You do not avert your eyes.
That's what's coming at us.
00:07:45.600 --> 00:07:48.855
This might sound a little weird, but
the person who loses the most here
00:07:48.855 --> 00:07:52.450
is actually Michael Bay.
He is a slave to his own eye.
00:07:52.459 --> 00:07:55.204
He has a need to make
every image dynamic, even
00:07:55.230 --> 00:07:57.998
when it runs contrary to
the theme of his movie.
00:07:58.023 --> 00:08:03.958
— Some people just don't know a good thing
when it's staring them in the face.
00:08:05.091 --> 00:08:08.115
— It really is the simple things in life...
00:08:08.115 --> 00:08:10.216
Yeah, the little things,
like a big house,
00:08:10.225 --> 00:08:12.526
a dock, a view of the water
and a speed boat.
00:08:12.541 --> 00:08:16.853
What happens when two great storytellers
tackle this exact same theme?
00:08:17.108 --> 00:08:20.514
— Heck, Norm, you know,
we're doing pretty good.
00:08:23.072 --> 00:08:25.576
— I love you, Margie.
00:08:25.600 --> 00:08:27.956
— I love you, Norm.
00:08:30.612 --> 00:08:33.196
— Two more months.
00:08:35.769 --> 00:08:39.467
— Two more months...