Despite what you may have heard, Armageddon is a work of art by a cutting-edge artist who is a master of movement, light, color, and shape—and also of chaos, razzle-dazzle, and explosion. (It was no surprise to me to learn that as a thirteen-year-old, director Michael Bay blew up his toy train set with firecrackers so he could photograph the result with his mom’s 8mm camera.) If he weren’t working in Hollywood, Bay would be the darling bad boy of the intelligentsia. As it is, he sometimes falls under suspicion for having been nominated for multiple MTV Awards, and for having won every accolade available to directors of commercials, including the Clio and the prestigious Director’s Guild of America “Commercial Director of the Year” title. Armageddon is only his third movie, but it came under fire from some critics who had praised his second, The Rock, and for its same characteristics: fast cutting, impressive special effects, and a minimum of exposition.
The first time I saw Michael Bay, he was a polite eighteen-year-old who stopped by my office at Wesleyan University to tell me he wanted to major in Film Studies. He also asked me if I would like to see his still photographs. As a teacher, I believe there is only one answer to that question: “Of course.” (It’s my job.) Over the years, I’ve seen a great deal of material from freshmen—short stories, novels, plays, ceramics, paintings, sculptures, prints, fashion designs, videos, computer art, movies in 8mm and 16mm, even recipe collections—but I have yet to see anything like Bay’s high school photos. They were astonishing—revealing an amazing eye for composition, an instinct for capturing movement, and an inherent understanding of implied narrative. Later, I saw this same ability in film classes. In history/theory, he listened intently, but said little, speaking mostly to ask keen questions or to deal with what he felt was nonsense from his peers. But in film production classes, he was the Road Runner, taking off on his own, needing little guidance. His senior film, Benjamin’s Birthday, won Wesleyan’s Frank Capra Prize for Best Film, and it was definitely what we now know as a “Michael Bay Film.” It was funny. It was fast. And it featured a very ritzy yellow Porsche. It told its story clearly, but in a highly nonverbal manner. Bay was ahead of his age group, but he was also ahead of his time. He still is.
It is true that Armageddon, a perfect example of Bay’s work, illustrates his “take-no-prisoners” form of storytelling, in which he trusts an audience to figure things out. (One of its strengths is its minimum of dreadful exposition that over-explains the inevitable pseudoscience.) Yes, it gives audiences a lot to absorb. Yes, it cuts quickly from place to place, person to person, event to event. But it is never confusing, never boring, and never less than a brilliant mixture of what movies are supposed to do: tell a good story, depict characters through active events, invoke an emotional response, and entertain simply and directly, without pretense.
Armageddon is not for the faint-hearted, the slow-witted, or the dim-eyed. (Those who claim that it was hard to tell where characters were in relation to each other in the space should take another look.) Consider how the film explains what Harry Stamper’s (Bruce Willis) vacationing crew is doing when he sends out the word he needs them. In little more than one minute of screen time, five key characters are identified, established in a specific environment, shown relating to others, given distinct personalities, and defined in ways that indicate how they will behave on the later mission. (If that’s not screenwriting, what is?)
At its core, Armageddon is a genre picture, and like all genre pictures that arrive late in the cycle, it has been subjected to misinterpretation. Although it qualifies as a science fiction/disaster movie, I see it as an epic form of the old Warner Brothers movies about working-class men who have to step up and rescue a situation through their courage, true grit, and knowledge of machines—productions such as Raoul Walsh’s Manpower (1941) and Alfred E. Green’s Flowing Gold (1940). The “science fiction” or “disaster movie” elements of Armageddon fit into the epic form—a form that exists to make movie stories we already know grander, larger, and more “real” in historic setting. (A failed epic settles for the definition put forth in Nicholas Ray’s 1950 film In a Lonely Place: “. . . a picture that’s real long and has lots and lots going on.”) Armageddon is grand, large, and set at NASA, but, the story of Stamper, his daughter, and his hard-living, oil-drilling buddies is the kind of movie that has previously been smaller and tighter. This film makes these ordinary men noble, lifting their efforts up into an epic event. Here, working men are not only saving the overeducated scientists and politicians who can’t do anything (and who probably went to Yale and Harvard), but, incidentally, the entire population of the planet.
1998
153 min
Color
2.35:1
Categories: Film Essays
13 Comments
Wed 26 Nov at 07:18 PM
Dave
I honestly have to say, that this is the best way to really summarize Armageddon as a whole. It is a genre picture and it’s produced only to entertain. If anything, this essay trumps all the negative reviews that slammed this movie by looking at it from a different angle. Basinger described it perfectly for what it was, and that’s all the movie really needed.
Fri 05 Dec at 01:28 PM
Aaron Dumont
I can definitely understand where you’re coming from, but isn’t this a company that claims to only carry “important classic and contemporary films” and films that represent “cinema at its finest”? If memeory serves, this film got a 1 out of 4 star-rating from Pulitzer-Prize winning Roger Ebert, and landed on his “most hated films” list. You may have loved the film, Basinger and Criterion, but I don’t believe this is an important classic of cinema or a fine work of art.
Mon 29 Dec at 02:02 PM
DAVE
I do agree Aaron, it is pretty strange that Criterion would carry this movie under the same banner that also has the works of Kurosawa and Hitchcock. I guess it’s entry would most likely be open for interpretation than anything else.
Sat 07 Feb at 02:21 PM
Aaron Dumont
My guess is that they did it for the cash.
Thu 19 Feb at 02:55 AM
Peter Beary
The greatest film storytellers – Spielberg, Hitchcock, Lean, Ford, Coppola, Kubrick, Scorcese and Cameron should all be in everyone’s top 10 – excel at all aspects of film storytelling: visually gripping moviegoers with their general vision, complementing that visual grip via their use of light, color and editing, working from finely written scripts, presenting thorough characterization, presenting good dialogue, drawing great performances, and presenting fine production values (sets, costumes, make-up, effects, music, etc.) throughout their films. Maybe 8 other filmmakers that have come down the pike are as consistently good as the above mentioned at all the aspects of film storytelling mentioned above. Should other filmmakers who are great at various aspects of film storytelling be excluded from great collections simply because they are not great at ALL aspects of film storytelling? Clearly, the answer is no.
Bay is undeniably a visual storytelling genius with a spectacular, close-up vision of film storytelling, highly complemented by his use of light, color and fast-paced editing, who always draws good performances (Ben Affleck didn’t miss the mark in PEARL HARBOR, his lines did), and I needn’t mention his commitment to production values.
So his tendencies regarding story, script, characterization, and dialogue lean heavily toward the commercial and easily digestible. But if that’s what a picture calls for – and genre pictures generally do – then so be it. Shit, I wish I could craft such commercially enjoyable work.
The only out-and-out criticism you can honestly make against him is the tone of PEARL HARBOR, a spectacularly produced film by any measure, but presented in the wrong tone given the subject matter.
I say he’s great enough at what he’s great at that he belongs in any list of great directors. Count me in the column of those who believe Michael Bay DOES belong in the Criterion Collection.
Fri 19 Jun at 03:28 AM
Ryan Graves
Looking through the titles that Criterion has, I said to myself-“Here is a company that knows what they are doing. They are carrying the films that really matter, that really are solid works of art.” and then I saw this.
I am shocked that this film is included in their canon and hold no sympathy for those who defend this “misinterpreted film.” To be sure, Michael Bay does deserve credit for being a director who can make an attractive film. But that’s all it is. Something pretty. I hope Criterion will be a little less shallow next time around.
Fri 26 Jun at 11:28 AM
The Raisin Girl
Oh C’mon, Aaron Dumont. Roger Ebert may have won a Pulitzer Prize, but he’s not the god of the film industry. His word on a particular movie isn’t the law. Have you read his review for Star Trek? It sucked. He kept asking stupid questions like “why didn’t they just beam down onto Vulcan?” when in the movie it clearly stated that the enemy had jammed the transport capabilities. The man can win all the prizes in the world, but he writes a review like he was text messaging through the entire movie.
Wed 01 Jul at 12:09 AM
Ramon Villalobos
Well even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and in this case, Ebert is right.
Bay is a terrible filmmaker and should never be included in any discussion on great directors.
Wed 01 Jul at 11:35 PM
Keiran Gill
I think youre on the money Ryan – Criterion have been incredibly shallow to permit this access!! Its as though Basinger thinks the golden rule of film-making is simply to put pretty things on screen!!
Apparently in Bay’s own words his attitude towards directing is to “f%&k the frame’. So in other words, hes in it for the money shots. Thats the inspiration for the revered "light, colour, and fast-paced editing”!!!
Sorry but its just another movie made to sell tickets… The ads and promos always look good in these sorts of films, the audience gets sucked in, escapes reality for an hour or so and everyone goes home happy – doesnt mean its a cinema classic though.
Hitchcock would be turning in his grave!
Thu 02 Jul at 01:08 AM
Ramon Villalobos
Here’s hoping Criterion can get the rights to Transformers 2, spectacular work of art that it is from this misunderstood genius.
Tue 14 Jul at 11:58 PM
xena jane
well nothing I can say But great movie! look to the positive side of the movie…it gives a lot of essential messages to us!
Wed 15 Jul at 12:05 AM
xena jane
especially in using the knowledge….the technologies and the different skills in order to survive such struggles….the sacrifices…the decision-making they have undergone…just to save the world rather than saving themselves!
i don’t really know the director and i’m not that good critic when it comes to the director…i am more emphasize in affective theory…the audience response…the meaning of the movie and how it could help us in real life. this movie just give us a warning and some tips to do… i appreciate it…
but i still believe that world would only end if inhabitants no longer exist.
Wed 22 Jul at 02:35 AM
Dan
The only reason Criterion added this title – and The Rock for that matter – to their illustrious roster is because Michael Bay asked them to before even Criterion knew what the collection would eventually represent.
You see, before production companies realized the big money there was to be made in releasing special editions, limited editions, 2-disc sets and noticed the general interest in special features and featurettes among consumers, Criterion was ahead of that game and began… The Collection. Michael Bay noticed, and he wanted Armageddon to get the whole shebang – features, commentaries, the complete package. That’s just how much Michael Bay loves his own movies, and CC were the only people willing to go forward with such a project. And why not? They were still establishing the business, and at the time it was a big license… art-film or not. Bay made some calls, got the licensing together, blah blah blah… and there we have it, Armageddon in the collection and licensing for The Rock on the way. Years after, the Criterion collection has expanded and expanded and gained loyal buyers and collectors who eagerly await their every release with bated breath. But alas, the stain remains. They can’t just banish these titles from Criterion history, but I sure wish they’d tell the story and set the record straight to avoid such confusion among collectors.
Add Comment