I’d like to begin this week by officially endorsing the James Franco Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor campaign. Spring Break Foevah.
Now, speaking of movies that are fairly similar to “Spring Breakers,” I’d like to talk about “Pain & Gain.” More specifically, I’d like to talk about “Pain & Gain” and its director, Michael Bay. And most specifically, I’d like to talk about how “Pain & Gain” and Michael Bay are freaking me the hell out.
You see, “Pain & Gain” isn’t like other Michael Bay movies. It’s much, much better. It’s good. It’s smart. It has something to say. This is not the typical Michael Bay movie.
See, the thing about Michael Bay is he probably gets more hate than he deserves—probably. And he isn’t stupid—probably.
The man studied at the American Film Institute Conservatory, the same school that produced David Lynch, Terrence Malick and Darren Aronofsky. He can’t be dumb… probably.
“The Rock” is an exceptional action movie, and his other films, ranging anywhere from average to bad, aren’t anything too offensive—outside of a certain franchise.
And of course there always is that certain, infamous franchise, filled with all of the sexism, racism, misogyny, homophobia and juvenile excess for which we’ve come to despise Bay, and rightfully so—probably.
Now, “Pain & Gain” is the reason I have to keep qualifying this distaste. After seeing “Pain & Gain,” I honestly don’t know what to think about Michael Bay. Before I saw it, I thought I knew who he was; now, I have absolutely no idea what is true and what is a lie.
For those of you who weren’t willing to take the risk, let me say that “Pain & Gain” is, in a lot of ways, the third adaptation of “The Great Gatsby” to come out this year, and the second best (after “Spring Breakers” and over “Gatsby” itself).
More importantly, it destroys the entire culture and image Michael Bay had built around himself. Like, aggressively and… intelligently.
The two main characters, intensely involved bodybuilders played by Mark Wahlberg and Dwayne Johnson, are essentially the self-obsessed, emotionally and intellectually arrested entities we tend to associate with things like the “Transformers” movies.
“Pain & Gain” destroys them.
“Pain & Gain” doesn’t just destroy them. It destroys the entire macho, self-made mythology, the machismo and delusion that is the foundation of his fan base. It’s uncompromising, it’s satirical, it’s brilliant and it’s aimed directly at the people most likely to support its director.
It’s like watching Woody Allen make a movie founded on decrying and laughing at upper-middle-class, white, neurotic New Yorkers.
So here’s the thing: this changes absolutely everything I’ve thought about Michael Bay. Before this, he was just a pretty solid action director who got seduced by big time blockbuster dollars.
Now, I can only imagine a handful of possibilities, and they all keep me awake at night.
Situation A, which seems very unlikely, is Michael Bay is some sort of filmmaking idiot savant who happened to make a bitingly satirical film aimed at his own cult of personality. It’s totally possible that he loves his two meat-head protagonists, and when we the audience laughs at/scorns them, we’re doing the same to Bay.
I can’t accept this though. The jabs are too precise, the style tweaked just so make it bite a little harder and nearly every character is made to be reviled (Rebel Wilson and Ed Harris come out okay).
So the question stands then: Is Michael Bay the cinematic equivalent of an internet troll, making the worst movies he possibly can to take unwitting moviegoers’ cash in massive sums, and then, is “Pain & Gain” his sly little wink to the rest of us that, yes, he knows, and he thinks it’s hilarious?
And if this is the case, why are there so many points in “Pain & Gain” where I feel like Bay thinks the things his characters say are just as funny as they do (they’re mostly played satirically, but the ones that feel like straight comedy are very problematic).
The bigger question of this whole thing really is: How does the way a filmmaker presents himself to their audience and the way they present that audience to themselves affect the way we view them? And should we integrate these ideas when evaluating the artist and their art together?
Why isn’t it enough to just accept “Pain & Gain” as a shockingly good movie from an otherwise schlock director? Or is it? I personally can’t accept that idea based on just how pointed at itself the film feels, but then some people are going to say I’m reading too much into the man who made “Transformers: Dark of the Moon.”
Which is a shame, because by discounting him, or discounting any “low-brow” culture from discussion, they’re removing themselves from a really fascinating discussion, one that proves even directors like Bay the Terrible have a role to play in starting discussion about art, about culture and about how we deal with it.
All art is important, even the bad stuff. And who knows, maybe the Dinobots in “Transformers 4” will have some answers for us.
Are you just as confused about Michael Bay as Austin? Tell him about at wellens@wisc.edu
