Michael Bay Gets Political
More than meets the eye?
Reviewing Transformers: The Rise of the Fallen for io9, Charlie Jane Anders memorably proclaimed that Michael Bay had finally produced a high-concept film and “used a squillion dollars and a hundred supercomputers’ worth of CG for a brilliant art movie about the illusory nature of plot.”
I think there’s a lot to that, but one shouldn’t miss the extent to which TROFT is also an incredibly engagé political text, a searing indictment of Obama’s liberal fascist United States of America. After all, though the film doesn’t dwell on the point, one critical turn in the storyline comes when a heroic Major in the United States Army (or possibly Air Force) decides to disobey orders and mutiny against a civilian operative specifically sent by POTUS to take command of the operation. But what’s more, this is no rogue special forces officer, he’s clearly supported in his action by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who elects to turn a blind eye, and leave President Obama (who’s named specifically) in the dark as he cowers in fear in an underground bunker. Obama, you see, has ordered American forces to attempt to appease the Deceptecon threat by halting all collaboration with the Autobots, and agreeing to turn Sam Witwicky over to the forces of evil. By defying Obama and staging what amounts to a coup, the military saves the day.
What’s more, the film appears to indicate that Jordan and Egypt share a border right near the tip of the Gulf of Aqaba. For this to be the case, of course, Israel would have to be wiped off the map. The film doesn’t specify how this horrific turn of events took place, but I think we can take for granted that Obama’s cowardly of a settlement freeze is ultimately responsible.
42 Responses to “Michael Bay Gets Political”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
June 29th, 2009 at 11:46 am
And here I thought this was all about rescuing Mattel from a subpar third and fourth quarter.
June 29th, 2009 at 11:47 am
I guess there are more important things to think about than the Ricci decision.
June 29th, 2009 at 11:49 am
I don’t mind that people enjoy stuff like TRANSFORMERS 2. I’ve like plenty of crap in my day. Just because I like something, though, that doesn’t necessarily make it any good. This thing is about 3 steps above the “Ow! My Balls!” TV show from Mike Judge’s IDIOCRACY.
Mike
June 29th, 2009 at 11:50 am
I was mentioning to someone yesterday the much-overlooked point that Transformers: RotF seems to take place in an alterante reality where Israel doesn’t exist. There’s the Egyptian-Jordanian border post as you mentioned, plus the military command asks about Jordanian air assets and overflight rights for Egypt, but makes no reference to Israel. My best guess is that, since they actually did part of the filming in both Egypt and Jordan that the film makers had to leave out any reference to Israel to get filming rights.
June 29th, 2009 at 11:51 am
Clearly, this is setting up the plot for the third film, in which the Autobots and Decepticons join forces against the common menace of a moderate Democratic president.
June 29th, 2009 at 11:54 am
I’d like to think Obama wouldn’t try to appease the decepticons, but after watching him deal with republicans and blue-dog democrats in Congress I’m not so sure.
June 29th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Only thing I have to say about this is:
WOLVERINES!
June 29th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
How Obama should handle the threat of Decepticons?
Thank God for Stephen Colbert’s Doom Bunker!
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/220650/march-04-2009/doom-bunker—jack-jacobs-and-stephen-moore
June 29th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
The Anders review is pretty good, such as:
“Megan Fox, for whom banality is a huge aphrodisiac.” My kind of gal!
June 29th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
I agree with Just Dropping By’s reasoning. I’ve worked on some sports telecasts for Middle East television that required us to go off the air if an Israeli athlete would be featured.
June 29th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
Huh. Not sure if I’m going to see the movie or not. I know critics hate it, which is 100 percent predictable, but I think the sales figures is a sign that it’s fun, even if not all that good. I might not read any more of this thread, just in case of spoilers.
Surprised to see Obama mentioned by name, though. Isn’t the lead time on producing a movie something like a year? They must have filmed different versions of the scene for each viable presidential candidate.
Re: MBunge, I thought Idiocracy was funny enough, but man is it annoying to see people saying “it’s so true, man, and it’s scary, because people really are getting dumber.” I’m not saying you’re saying this, you just reminded me of it. This strip seems like the obvious example, and I had a friend like that too.
June 29th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Supposedly, Bay is a fan of Obama and the two ran into each other at the airport before Obama was elected (although I forget when exactly) and Bay introducted him self as a director and fan. According to Bay Obama asked him what films he made, and after Bay responded Obama said “oh you make those big-ass films” and was nice about. I doubt Bay is very political, more of an art for arts sake type.
June 29th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
At least ‘Red Dawn’ is well-made, genuinely moving at parts (I can’t believe I’m admitting this), and harkens back to a kind of pre-”New Hollywood,” John Ford-type aesthetic that’s been dead for decades. Michael Bay movies are just gawdy and tacky. They’re the cinematic equivalent of those Fanta commercials. They hurt my eyes.
I don’t buy the ‘guilty pleasure’ bullshit. His movies are first and foremost BORING.
June 29th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
“I guess there are more important things to think about than the Ricci decision.”
Yes, Steve, any commentator who does not ignorantly pontificate about the Ricci decision within 3 hours is clearly in league with the decepticon plot to strip white people of freedoms. How astute of you to notice.
June 29th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
Cyrus – “Re: MBunge, I thought Idiocracy was funny enough, but man is it annoying to see people saying “it’s so true, man, and it’s scary, because people really are getting dumber.”
I actually thought IDIOCRACY was pretty mean, arrogant and condescending. Judge seemed to have a hectoring tone in that film which isn’t there for his other work. But then TRANSFORMERS 2 makes 200 million dollars in 5 days and you start to wonder.
Mike
June 29th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
My impression was that they plot would have been the same no matter who was in the white house, but you are right that they did name Obama as the President by name. And in the first movie they do not call the President Bush by name, but the character of the President on Air Force One is clearly an unkind cariciture of Bush.
Movies often have characters buck banal, appeasing authority figures. For the next 4, possibly 8 years this means they will be bucking banal, appeasing representatives of the Obama Administration. This is a non-issue, and everyone complaining is just looking for a reason to be agreived.
June 29th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
My 2nd favorite TV show of the last few years is “Ow! My Balls!”
June 29th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
Sales figures in the first five days tell you that a movie was well hyped, or saturated the theaters. To see if it’s “fun despite the critics” you need to wait for at least the second weekend.
June 29th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
Movies with fucktillion dollar budgets are object lessons in path-dependency.
Wouldn’t is be hilarious if the autobots had to hide outside of witwicky’s house?
Um, no.
Well, too bad, ’cause we’ve already spent $837,534 on that 3 insufferable minutes of storyboard-filler. Next shot!
June 29th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
A brief note on Ricci:
So in a 5-4 decision, the Court announced a new test for evaluating attempts to avoid disparate-impact liability that themselves amount to disparate treatment. Borrowing from its Equal Protection Clause doctrines with respect to remedies for past discrimination, the Court adopted a “strong basis in evidence” test, and then held that New Haven failed to meet this test.
In contrast, the dissent argued that this new test was excessively vague in this context, and unwarranted by the Court’s Title VII precedents and Title VII itself. The dissent further argued that the Court should not have announced this new test and then not given New Haven an opportunity to relitigate the case pursuant to this new test in the lower courts.
Anyway, regardless of what one feels about the merits of the decision, one obvious point is that all this has basically nothing to do with Sotomayor in particular: Courts of Appeal cannot be charged with the duty to anticipate and then apply new Supreme Court doctrines.
June 29th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
I actually thought IDIOCRACY was pretty mean, arrogant and condescending. Judge seemed to have a hectoring tone in that film which isn’t there for his other work
The man who created Beavis and Butthead complaining about the low-brow nature of modern entertainment? Heh heh.
June 29th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
I saw the first Transformers movie. On a giant screen, on a cruise ship.
You know what would have made that movie better? If it was dubbed into a language I didn’t understand, without subtitles. Then, you can let your imagination fill in whatever dialogue you like.
You know, like when you hit the Mute button when Michelle Malkin comes on the teevee.
June 29th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
What’s more, the film appears to indicate that Jordan and Egypt share a border right near the tip of the Gulf of Aqaba. For this to be the case, of course, Israel would have to be wiped off the map.
That’s nothing. The movie also wiped out the entire United States between the back door of the Air & Space Museum and the Rocky Mountains.
June 29th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Anyway, regardless of what one feels about the merits of the decision, one obvious point is that all this has basically nothing to do with Sotomayor in particular: Courts of Appeal cannot be charged with the duty to anticipate and then apply new Supreme Court doctrines.
A fair point. Of course, I still think the fact that she wrote what ammounted to a non-opinion when she ruled on Ricci despite the very real issues in the case is a black mark against her. Not a confirmation killing black mark to be sure, but a black mark all the same.
June 29th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
That weaselly “civilian operative specifically sent by POTUS” looked an awful lot like Rummy. At times, anyway.
June 29th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
My 2nd favorite TV show of the last few years is “Ow! My Balls!”
Basically America’s Funniest home videos, where the dad pitches a ball to his kid who hits it back into his nuts.
Idiocracy also portrayed the non-breeding yuppies as dweebs. Beavis and Butthead was making fun of the DFH teacher who thought he could improve B & B and also the military coach, who get insanely angry at them. But Beavis and Butthead did have good taste in music videos.
And Office Space? Brilliant. Judge’s new movie looks okay.
June 29th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Of course, I still think the fact that she wrote what ammounted to a non-opinion when she ruled on Ricci despite the very real issues in the case is a black mark against her.
I can understand people thinking the Second Circuit should have discussed this case more itself, but I also think it is important to be precise about this. Sotomayor never wrote anything personally: the first version of decision was a summary order without an opinion, and the second version was a per curiam opinion adopting the District Court’s opinion, which in turn the Second Circuit accepted en banc.
So that is the real issue–was it appropriate for the panel just to adopt the District Court’s opinion? And again, while I can see the argument against doing so (as expressed by Judge Cabranes), that strikes me as too technical and too close an issue to really refect much about Sotomayor personally.
June 29th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
I complain about – and cook – the food my family eats. It is actually more irritating when you know you’re making something awful because that’s what people want.
June 29th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
Judge’s new movie looks okay.
Wait, what?
June 29th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
From wikipedia:
Extract is an upcoming comedy film written and directed by Mike Judge and starring Jason Bateman, Mila Kunis, J.K. Simmons, and Ben Affleck. This film is scheduled to have a limited release on September 4, 2009 followed by a wide release on September 11, 2009.
June 29th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
Other than during babe closeups, I spent the entire film thinking that this is something I’d have seen with my son when he was 10, rather than 17.
I too was surprised to hear the POTUS mentioned by name. I thought productions tried to avoid references that would date a movie unnecessarily.
Also, the backdoor of the Air & Space Museum opening directly onto the Davis-Monthan AFB boneyard was one of several wtf moments in the film.
June 29th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Years of anti Bush films don’t faze Matt, but let one guy go negative on Obama and he gets his panties in a twist. Kind of pathetic, actually. It’s a movie, for gosh sakes, based on a cartoon.
June 29th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Here’s the video of Michael Bay telling the story of meeting Obama at the airport. Pretty funny, actually.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfT7ZF_AUk8“
June 29th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
James Robertson Says:
Years of anti Bush films don’t faze Matt, but let one guy go negative on Obama and he gets his panties in a twist.
My GOD!!!!
Matt commented people were taking shots at the COMMANDER IN CHIEF!!!
Shouldn’t that be tried for TREASON!?!
Though seriously, if it would keep Bay from making another movie, I’d be ok with throwing him into Guantanamo indefinitely
June 29th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
“Years of anti Bush films don’t faze Matt, but let one guy go negative on Obama and he gets his panties in a twist.”
If you think THAT is “panties in a twist”, you’ve clearly never seen real-life underwear.
June 29th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
When people can’t depend on reality to back up their idiotic opinions, they turn to fictional works.
Reminded me when a Republican congressman brought up Jack Bauer torture as a serious scenario when discussing waterboarding…
June 29th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
I think Matt framed this incorrectly. The reference to Obama is a one-time voice-over thing, and never uttered by an on-screen character. It looks like something that was added in very late in post-production (same thing with the au courant swine flu reference).
The really striking thing about the movie’s plot is not it’s hostility to the political views of Obama (I didn’t discern any of that). Rather, it’s the movie’s hostility to the authority of the office of the president. The movie unapologetically renders the military as a completely sovereign political actor, and portrays its mutiny against civilian authorities as heroic. That’s a pretty radical vision, and it’s pretty right-wing no matter what Michael Bay thinks of Obama.
June 29th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
Steve314159: “Only thing I have to say about this is:
WOLVERINE!”
Fixed that for you.
June 29th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
JD gets it right: “This is a non-issue, and everyone complaining is just looking for a reason to be agreived.”
Aside from the spelling, of course – but that’s Matt’s bailiwick anyway.
This is just another of Matt’s throwaway posts with zero content.
June 29th, 2009 at 7:55 pm
I felt that the weasely bureaucrat was most likely not telling Obama the truth … LOL
Loved the movie, screw the critics!!!!
June 29th, 2009 at 9:50 pm
If you think “Beavis and Butthead” wasn’t a *satire* of idiots like. . . well, Beavis and Butthead, you weren’t paying attention.
July 5th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
You’re giving the American Uwe Boll too much credit here Matt. The idea of Mike Bay having an underlying narrative when he can’t even remember to have a story or hire a continuity director is ludicrous.