License:
Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike

by Troler

Free Software fundamentally misses the point. It fails on a practical, ideological, economic, and political level. Let’s examine precisely how (in a slightly different order for the purposes of presentation).

Man of fire is a quite strange film in Tony Scott's career, since it was originally not his, but Michael Bay's film, due to Bay being utterly focused on making Bad Boy II.

To see the Bayhem! In Man of fire, it is a good idea to look at where Michael Bay directed his director’s vision. Having not watched Bay’s movie since I last saw them on the TV 4 or so years ago, I was surprised how hyperactive they are. Were half of my fingers cut off, I would still be able to count how many calm conversation scenes there were. They were as calm as they can be when a camera is zooming. The camera zoomed from one shot to another, seemingly never taking a break. There was a scene where the buddy cops, played by Martin Lawrence and Will Smith. Their bazaz was only amplified by the scenic shots of Miami and Cuba. It is strange to say it, Michael Bay made Cuba look actually pleasant. Even shots meant to look unappealing, be it attic, mortuary, sewers, they were filled to the brim of life. There was not much time to awe at the scenes, since almost two thirds, if not more, of the runtime are action, action, action scenes. The cars crashed, the tees fell, the houses were crashed into, fell, burned and exploded. It seems Bay threw in every possible action scene he could think, by the time a plot driving scene finished.

The editing was quick and on beat with action. Cuts occurred just after enough time to feel the impact of the action scene, not too late to be bored by the sight. In such a matter a breathless type of effect was sustained. There were moments when I drifted off to somewhere, they were short just from the amount of Bayhem! Even the comedy itself felt intense. Take for example the recurring scene with the destruction of cop’s, played by Martin Lawrence, pool.
Man of fire was a filmed worked on by Michael Bay at first. It came out a year after Bad Boys II. According to BlenderDumbass, it is the most Bay movie to ever Be(y). Naturally, it comes it must have the DNA of Bayhem! Are there any scenic shots? Not exactly, some general scene shots are present. They seem to be there for the technical need of becoming familiar with the location. Most of the shots are done on ground. Literally, on the ground. Not to the extent Michael Bay does, where he does low-angle shots. Those were not present in Tony Scott’s film. Unlike the quite picturesque scenes in Bad Boys II, Man of fire looks like a stereotypical imagination of the Mexico. It is dirty, chaotic and very much unpleasant to be in. Even the luxurious mansion feels unwelcoming. Together with the long, static shots and cold and unemotional Denzel Washington acting as Creasy, a strong sensation of dread was drilled throughout the movie. With the dozens sporadic shot overlays, dialogue text, it seems as if the entire movie is being experienced through the protagonist. 1st person experience is present in Bad Boys II as well. Rather, it is subtle. Michael Bay is focused on the action, the thrill of ravaging and always moving forwards.

In Tony Scott’s case, he is interested in attachment. In attachment to people, this case to a child and the pain of losing a loved one. There could definitely be a psycho-sexual analysis be done. I am going to say, the choice for Lupita (Dakota Fanning) being cast as a child is to create a same effect as movies by Lars von Trier. The kidnapping of a child and, in Michael Bay’s case sexy lady (Gabrielle Union), is just a way for the viewers to be far more sentimental.

This sentimentality is seen in the actor’s behavior. The main villain Sanchez (Roberto Sosa) is no less emotionally unstable than the protagonist.

The emotional state is further fueled by the music, which, quite unorthodox, is folk Mexican music. Where Michael Bay chose to utilize pop and rap, Tony Scott’s decision was to lean into the Mexican aesthetic.

The emotional weight differs substantially between both films. Michael Bay create an intense corn-flicker. Not to say it in poor taste, rather it is very easy to watch. Tony Scott, on the other hand, created a slow moving, depressing tale of revenge. Both movies have kidnapping, both have action scenes, intense moments. The execution differs to a point where I am starting to question myself whether Tony Scott rebelled against the entire doctrine of Bayhem!
As can be seen in his short film Agent Orange, this PTSD style was a conscious choice. What made him convert? I cannot tell for sure, except that it has something to do with Michael Bay, Bad Boys II and depression.
Fin.


Next Previous JSON Markdown

  Blender Dumbass c:0



Did you mean Man on Fire?

... replies ( 1 )

  Troler c:2



@blenderdumbass You're just nit-picking.

Reply

  Blender Dumbass c:1


In my humble opinion I find the Tony-Scott-hem! of Man on Fire and the Bayhem! of Bad Boys II quite similar when it comes to cinematic language. Both are designed to induce a strong level of Adrenalin through intense imagery and sharp editing. Tony Scott is taking his movie obviously way more seriously. For Michael Bay it was just a therapy session after he needed to, at least try to, take Pearl Harbor seriously. Which was his previous film. So Bad Boys II is extremely flamboyant.

Both directors utilize a great amount of long lens ( 75 mm ) hand held footage. Both directors cranked up the contrast of the film to extreme values. Bay did seem to use more saturation and color variations thought. While Tony limited the color scheme to a few earthy tones and ugly greens.

Tony uses overlaying footage one over another to create the effect, which will set people on edge. Michael uses more dynamicism for the same effect. He will find just the right shots and just the right moments in those shots to assemble a suggestion of a moment Sergei Eisenstein style. While Tony would overlay them and supermessify them, Tony Scott style. Also Michael Bay's shots appear to be cleaner. And Michael is using a short ( wide ) lens more frequently, which lets him make way more pretty pictures way more frequently. For a movie like Bad Boys II which is designed to be a fun pop-corn ride, this is a correct way to go. While what Tony does isn't a fun pop-corn ride, but a brutal tale of revenge, with a twist.

If you look at something a bit more serious from Bay, like say 13 hours, where he takes a serious situation very seriously. You can see he seizes his beauty shots, instead shooting most of the serious tension stuff with a free hand held camera. Which is not quite the same technique as what Tony Scott does with Man on Fire. Michael Bay never overlays footage over itself from different takes to create disorientation. But it feels already much closer, since Tony does shake the camera quite a bit during the tense stuff. And relaxes the camera during the not so tense stuff. Kind of like what Michael Bay does as well.

... replies ( 1 )

  Troler c:3



@blenderdumbass

Both are designed to induce a strong level of Adrenalin through intense imagery and sharp editing

That is true, I just found the way they achieve the goal quite different. Which lead to confusion about how different the films were.

Both directors utilize a great amount of long lens

I do not exactly understand the difference between long and short lenses. From what I saw, short lenses create this fish-eye view giving detail to the entire background, while long lens appear to flat out the background zoom into it as well.

Michael Bay's shots appear to be cleaner.

Definitely, I noted that in the analysis. Maybe it did not come across well.

Reply

  Troler c:2

... c:0

  Blender Dumbass c:0

Man of fire

Did you mean Man on Fire?

@blenderdumbass You're just nit-picking.

Reply

  Troler c:3

... c:1

  Blender Dumbass c:1


In my humble opinion I find the Tony-Scott-hem! of Man on Fire and the Bayhem! of Bad Boys II quite similar when it comes to cinematic language. Both are designed to induce a strong level of Adrenalin through intense imagery and sharp editing. Tony Scott is taking his movie obviously way more seriously. For Michael Bay it was just a therapy session after he needed to, at least try to, take Pearl Harbor seriously. Which was his previous film. So Bad Boys II is extremely flamboyant.

Both directors utilize a great amount of long lens ( 75 mm ) hand held footage. Both directors cranked up the contrast of the film to extreme values. Bay did seem to use more saturation and color variations thought. While Tony limited the color scheme to a few earthy tones and ugly greens.

Tony uses overlaying footage one over another to create the effect, which will set people on edge. Michael uses more dynamicism for the same effect. He will find just the right shots and just the right moments in those shots to assemble a suggestion of a moment Sergei Eisenstein style. While Tony would overlay them and supermessify them, Tony Scott style. Also Michael Bay's shots appear to be cleaner. And Michael is using a short ( wide ) lens more frequently, which lets him make way more pretty pictures way more frequently. For a movie like Bad Boys II which is designed to be a fun pop-corn ride, this is a correct way to go. While what Tony does isn't a fun pop-corn ride, but a brutal tale of revenge, with a twist.

If you look at something a bit more serious from Bay, like say 13 hours, where he takes a serious situation very seriously. You can see he seizes his beauty shots, instead shooting most of the serious tension stuff with a free hand held camera. Which is not quite the same technique as what Tony Scott does with Man on Fire. Michael Bay never overlays footage over itself from different takes to create disorientation. But it feels already much closer, since Tony does shake the camera quite a bit during the tense stuff. And relaxes the camera during the not so tense stuff. Kind of like what Michael Bay does as well.

@blenderdumbass

That is true, I just found the way they achieve the goal quite different. Which lead to confusion about how different the films were.


I do not exactly understand the difference between long and short lenses. From what I saw, short lenses create this fish-eye view giving detail to the entire background, while long lens appear to flat out the background zoom into it as well.


Definitely, I noted that in the analysis. Maybe it did not come across well.

... replies ( 1 )

  Blender Dumbass c:4



@Troler fish-eye view is ultra-short lens. Long lens is zoomed in. The background is compressed with the foreground. Natural to humans is about 35 mm. Anything shorter 25 mm, 20 mm 17mm all look fish-eye. Anything longer 50 mm, 75mm, 100mm all look space compressed.

Reply

  Blender Dumbass c:4

... c:3

  Troler c:3


c:1

@blenderdumbass

Both are designed to induce a strong level of Adrenalin through intense imagery and sharp editing

That is true, I just found the way they achieve the goal quite different. Which lead to confusion about how different the films were.

Both directors utilize a great amount of long lens

I do not exactly understand the difference between long and short lenses. From what I saw, short lenses create this fish-eye view giving detail to the entire background, while long lens appear to flat out the background zoom into it as well.

Michael Bay's shots appear to be cleaner.

Definitely, I noted that in the analysis. Maybe it did not come across well.

@Troler fish-eye view is ultra-short lens. Long lens is zoomed in. The background is compressed with the foreground. Natural to humans is about 35 mm. Anything shorter 25 mm, 20 mm 17mm all look fish-eye. Anything longer 50 mm, 75mm, 100mm all look space compressed.

Reply

Help

You can comment from Mastodon.

Go

c:1 @blenderdumbass
Post