PEARL HARBOR, directed by Michael Bay

There are plenty of movies out there that I simply don't like. These are movies that, for one reason or another, failed to impress me. For the most part, I view these as pretty harmless. Sweet Home Alabama is awful, but whom does it hurt, in the end? Nobody.
Every once in a while, though, a movie comes along that pushes me beyond the point of mere frustration, into straight-up rage. It does not happen often. However, Michael Bay's Pearl Harbor is one of these. It's not just that it's a bad movie; it's the way in which it's bad that makes me want to punch a wall.
Many things about this film can be forgiven- perhaps even applauded. That is, of course, if the movie were made by a different filmmaker. The overly-nostalgic look back at 1940s America would seem like an artistic choice if we were dealing with Steven Spielberg or Francis Ford Coppola. The sweeping cinematography and character archetypes are reminiscent of the pro-USA propaganda films of that era and any director who can approximate that style of moviemaking is aces in my book.
Unless, of course, that director is Michael Bay.
Somehow, I doubt that Bay is making a throwback to a simpler style of filmmaking. Rather, I think that he looked at the melodramatic script by Randall Wallace and decided that he was finally going to get his shot at an Academy Award. This was going to be his Saving Private Ryan. This was going to be his Lawrence of Arabia. This was a big story, and he was going to make it even bigger. So he attacked the film with all of his skills, never letting the audience forget how important his film was. Operatically-hushed tones in Washington to offset the carefully-crafted carnage on the battlefield. Triumphant camera angles that never let you forget just who won this war. America's innocence shattered on that fateful day.
Michael Bay truly thought he was making a masterpiece.
Of course, now, people look back on the film and laugh. This over-the-top piece of melodrama set a new standard in earnest cinematic atrocity. And the fact that Bay really thought he was making a modern classic- as opposed to a substandard action film with put-on airs- speaks to his almost childlike inability to grasp basic artistic concepts like subtlety and nuance. He is like Edward D. Wood with a much bigger budget. One almost feels bad for him, but- unlike Wood- his standoffish attitude and general contempt for the basic tenants of compelling cinema makes any sympathy for his artistic inadequacy dry up pretty quick.
It should be noted that ridiculous plotting and bombastic style are not enough to make me truly hate a film. There are plenty of movies with worse acting and no real style to speak of that I tolerate more than this film. What really sets Pearl Harbor apart for me is its treatment of violence.
It was bound to happen. Michael Bay makes action movies. The violence happens to fictional characters; two-dimensional ones, to boot. As such, we don't really care when a person is blown up or shot down. The only thing that matters is the visceral thrill of what's happening before our eyes.
It's a testament to Bay's complete lack of thoughtful introspection that he believed that this same formula for cinematic violence that had worked so well for him in the past would work in a film about Pearl Harbor. Admittedly, the bombing sequence is impressive... if it took place in a vacuum. Unfortunately, this is an event that really happened. Real people died horrible deaths. These were our grandparents that went through this, not some typical action movie cardboard cutouts.
Nothing about this sequence should be awesome. Visceral, yes. But not awesome. We should be made to feel the horrors of war, not the thrills of a video game. Civil War general William Sherman famously said, "War is hell." You'd never know it to watch Pearl Harbor. Here, war is fun. It's like Star Wars, with our heroes manning their respective fighters, weaving in and out of the carnage, taking down their enemies. As they fight for their lives, they hoot and holler; they're clearly having a great time. You'd never know to look at them that their friends are dying below.
People do not act this way, and those few that do should not be considered heroes. However, to Michael Bay, this is simply how characters behave in this kind of situation. This is how Martin Lawrence and Will Smith acted in Bad Boys, so why wouldn't these guys? The answer, of course, is that this was a real world event with real consequences, not the least of which is that almost 3,700 American soldiers were killed or wounded. Perhaps this is not the right film in which to evoke Han Solo shooting down a TIE-fighter.
Then there are the POV shots from the bombs and torpedoes tearing into American ships and sailors. Here, the sense of anticipation created by following a falling bomb to its target is not a function of dread or fate, but rather the mentality of, "Oh, man. Here comes the good stuff! This is gonna be awesome!" Perhaps- just maybe- rather than putting me in a situation to sympathize with a Japanese bomb, you can put me right there on the deck of a destroyed ship, scared to death. I imagine that's how the sailors were feeling; why shouldn't I feel it, too? But I guess that wouldn't make for an interesting camera shot, so it looks like we're out of luck.
But I guess when it comes to showing things from the point of view of the victims, I shouldn't get my hopes up too much. How can one expect to honestly depict the bloody mayhem of war with a PG-13 rating?

This sequence is what pushed the film over the edge for me. The wrong attitude towards violence tends to bother me, but the wrong attitude towards war absolutely infuriates me. I remember in 2006, when Paul Greengrass' United 93 was slated to come out, many people were asking if it was too soon. After the movie was released, and everybody saw how remarkable it was, that talk started going away. After seeing the film, people understood that five years is not too soon to artistically depict a national tragedy, as long as it is respectful and truthful.
On the other hand, I would say that sixty years is way too soon to show the events at Pearl Harbor, if this is the film you're making. There is no reverence, there is no truth, there is nothing. Except exploitation. Michael Bay and the studio knew that Pearl Harbor was something that inherently strikes a chord in Americans of any generation. They knew that people would come to see it in droves, almost as an act of patriotism. They showed up for Saving Private Ryan, right? It even won some Oscars. So why not give people what they want and make a tidy profit at the same time? And, hey, with the historical significance of the events depicted, this could become a modern-day classic. Like Gone with the Wind!
We know now that the film was destroyed by critics and largely dismissed by audiences. It was not a financial failure, but it was far from being the box office smash that the studio expected. And it certainly was not going to attain any kind of "classic" status.
In spite of everything I've written here, I have an odd sort of respect for Michael Bay and his dream of making an historical epic. His ambition to break out of the action film rut that he found himself in is one that I can admire. Since Pearl Harbor, Bay has made Bad Boys II, The Island, and Transformers. So it would appear that his foray into "serious" filmmaking is over. It's almost a shame. Bay is a director with several very specific talents. Telling emotionally-compelling stories with fascinating, multi-layered characters is, unfortunately, not one of them. So perhaps it's good that he stays within his zone of comfort, blowing up characters that nobody cared about in the first place. Because, with him there, we won't have to worry about cinematic trainwrecks like Pearl Harbor ever again.