Deconstruction of the 1998 movie ''ARMAGEDON'' by Michael Bay - Essay Example

? Armageddon: A Deconstructive Analysis Introduction Michael Bay’s film Armageddon attracted considerable public attention for its spectacular visuals and all-star cast. Jerry Bruckheimer, famous for large-scale Hollywood blockbusters, was the film’s producer. The film itself is firmly entrenched in a growing genre of disaster films, including such genre defining productions as Independence Day and Deep Impact (Law 2010). Indeed, writer of Deep Impact, Joel Rubin, noted that a Disney president took detailed notes on the film at a lunch they had with the understanding being that Armageddon would be Disney’s response (“Tales from the Script,” 2011). Even so, the film is spectacular in-scale and was an immense commercial success. While it was a financial success, it was highly criticized for compromising artistry for commercial appeal. This essay deconstructs the film through an examination of the narrative, character, technical, and aesthetic elements the filmmakers used to convey their underlining message. Narrative Perhaps the film’s primary means of advancing the narrative is through spectacular visual elements. In the first two scenes there are two corresponding explosions – a meteor striking the Earth and extinguishing the dinosaurs and an unidentified source destroying the space shuttle. It is not long before a third explosion occurs as a meteor slams into a man selling inflatable Godzillas; one considers the irony in a meteor destroying replica dinosaurs. It is clear that one of the predominant means of narrative advancement is in the film’s implementation of these explosions. While they are worked seamlessly into the narrative, it seems that Bay implements them in large-part as a means of startling the viewer, just like a horror film might implement a murder. In other instances, the explosions seem to function simply as a means of allowing the viewer to revel in the Hollywood special effects. For instance, early in the film asteroids strike New York City in a highly fantastical manner, resulting in falling buildings, statues, and wide-scale havoc. Although such special effects are intrinsic to the plot, it is clear that in this scene the film dwells on the explosions simply for their fantastical nature. Another prominent structural device is the parallel narrative form. The film regularly cuts between scenes featuring Bruce Willis and Ben Affleck, and those centered in mission control. As the film begins the two narratives are entirely removed, leaving the viewer to question why blue-collar oilrig drillers would have anything to do with an asteroid. The film expertly interweaves the plot lines, however, as the Billy Bob Thornton character eventually states that they must bring in the world’s best deep core driller in order to stop the asteroid. The film largely remains tied to a parallel narrative structure throughout. It isn’t until a significant amount of scenes have passed before the first montage is implemented. This occurs as Harry and Grace begin to discuss the members of the team they will need to accompany them on their Earth saving mission; the film then cuts between various individuals in their place of residence or favored pastime. Another montage is implemented as the team is given psychological evaluations by the NASA scientists. To a degree, Bay’s way of dealing with this scene seems to be influenced by Steven Soderbergh’s approach in the Ocean’s Eleven and Twelve films; namely, funky sounding music is overplayed while rapid-pace editing jumps between different funny quips. Of course, the film’s primary montage occurs as the United States president announces to the nation the upcoming mission. During this time various scenes of world regions are featured looking on. The message is one of global unity and is highly poignant and inspiring. Still, it’s noted that this device was also used in a similar disaster film, Independence Day, as the United States president called on the world to join in the fight against aliens. This fact further establishes the film’s genre conventions. Characterization One considers that the film, although establishing character elements and narrative trends, ensures that it remains fairly simple to understand. Feil (2006) notes that one of the characteristic elements of the disaster film genre is a camp-like emphasis on characterization. Within the context of Armageddon, the characterization of Billy Bob Thornton functions as a possible exception to this genre convention. The Thornton character is legitimately concerned with developing solutions to solve the oncoming asteroid and for the most part functions in a non-comedic manner. Still, it seems to an extent the Thornton character operates as much as a means of summarizing and simplifying plot elements for the viewer, as he operates to advance significant narrative elements. One considers his role in mission control is not so much to establish new ideas, but to criticize the scientists for being overly pedantic. After he encounters Harry, he then goes into an explication of the danger the Earth is facing from the asteroid. In these instances, it seems that the character is explaining and clarifying elements of the film for viewers that may be confused or have missed earlier portions. While many critics derided the film for its simplicity -- it even made Ebert’s (2005) list of most hated films -- it seems that narrative devices like these function as a means of extending the film’s scope to a larger audience. Still, they also compromise depth of story in order to achieve these commercial aims. When further considering characterization, the film relies heavily on the classic Hollywood star system. Bordwell (2009) notes that classic Hollywood films were oftentimes written as a means of conforming the film to the specific star. In this spectrum of understanding include characteristic Lauren Bacall, John Wayne, and Humphrey Bogart vehicles. While it would be a stretch to argue that this film was created with Bruce Willis and Billy Bob Thornton in mind, the characters they play in this film mirror elements they have adopted throughout their careers. Consider that after Harry is informed that he will be needed to save the world he gives an almost understanding response, as if he had done it before. In reality, Bay is playing on Willis’ character archetype as established in films such as the Die Hard series and Twelve Monkeys, where the actor is similarly required to perform superhero tasks to save society. To an extent the Thornton character also assumes such inter-textuality. as he functions as the institutional outsider who cuts through pedantic speech and actions to get to the real core of the problem. Such classic Hollywood characterization is further enhanced by the seeming downplay of the character’s fictional names. The film gives them highly typical and characteristically American monikers -- Harry, Grace, A.J., Dan. Still, these names seem to slightly hinder viewer involvement, as the audience subconsciously relates to the actors through their already well-established character archetypes from previous films. Technical Elements The film explores a number of prominent structural devices. The opening scene features shots of outer space and a blue marble shot of Earth. A modern day space mission follows this scene. Finally, the film moves into New York City. The effect is one wherein macro-explorations increasingly give way to more specific regional explorations. As a means of further distinguishing this structural shift, Bay implements a jarring juxtaposition of sound, as the opening shots of New York are accompanied by loud and abrasive music. Indeed, throughout the film juxtapositions of sound are prominently implemented to establish transitions. In addition to the shift from outer space to New York, the Bruce Willis character is first introduced through the sound of jangly rock music that coincides with a close-up on a golf ball. Another such transition scene occurs when Harry and his daughter arrive at the NASA headquarters. Here director Bay uses an establishing shot of a NASA sign, as well as rapid pace music, to introduce Harry’s arrival. Furthermore uplifting music is implemented as a means of transitioning between Harry’s introduction to the asteroid problem and his involvement in the solution. The film implements a number of unique camera techniques. One such instance occurs when Harry (Bruce Willis) discovers (Liv Tyler) asleep on the oilrig. The film cuts between a medium close-up on her face and then a shot that is made to seem from Tyler’s perspective towards Willis. The camera technique in this perspective shot is off-kilter and seems to characterize the Tyler character as slightly lackadaisical. This perspective technique is used again during the mission control meetings, as the viewer takes the head of the table and the scientists attempt to explain the various elements of the asteroid directly to the camera. Indeed, the film’s cinematic exploration of these mission control scenes takes on a number of unique elements. The underlining assumption seems to be the challenge of holding viewer interest, while continuing to focus on the on-goings of one room. In these regards, the filmmakers also make regular use of pan and tilts shots. Chandler (2009) notes that such techniques are effective, when coupled with editing, in heightening the viewer’s sense of filmic time, effectively bringing the audience more directly into the action. When one considers that the mission control scenes are highly contingent on time, as the scientists must develop a quick solution to avoid disaster, such rapid editing and camera techniques are understood to play a pivotal function. Aesthetic Elements As noted earlier the film has been established as firmly within the disaster genre. Feil (2006) established that some of the foundational conventions of this genre are popcorn explorations of camp. Throughout the film this camp aesthetic approach emerges in a variety of contexts. While the film begins on a serious note more akin to an action film, with the introduction of the Harry and the oilrig Bay plays with an element of absurdity. Harry is depicted as a child-like man able to drill to the bottom of the ocean, but unable to maturely deal with his social relationships. This characterization is taken to camp extremes as he chases after Affleck shooting a loaded rifle. In other instances the filmmakers implement the camp aesthetic in more subtle ways. In a conversation between the Billy Bob Thornton character and the Bruce Willis character, Willis goes on a long diatribe about NASA and then asks if drilling a hole on a gigantic asteroid is the only way to save the world; Thornton wryly responds that it is. This dialogue seems to make a self-reflexive comedic comment on the nature of the narrative as reliant on absurd plot devices. Still, such an ironic comment on the disaster genre is only meant for a limited part of the viewers, while others will simply read the comment as a legitimate statement on the fate of the Earth. Another prominent use of camp elements occurs as Harry’s team is established. In addition to coming from highly dubious areas – bar, casino, horse range – the team is composed of a truly rag tag group of individuals. The film makes comedic reference to this absurdity, as the group sits down at a board table after they are finally gathered. The mise-en-scene of this scene, notably the lighting, camera positioning, and character blocking, establishes a comedic connection with the earlier scenes that featured scientists surrounding the table. One can consider that this device also feeds into traditional American archetypes that position the blue-collar worker against the stolid and ineffectual intellectual elite -- an archetype that would be appealing to many of the film’s viewers. The connection between this group and mass culture is further established through their comedic requests to the United States government. While they are absurd – bringing back 8 track tapes, knowing who killed Kennedy, never having to pay taxes – they are comforting in the sense that the requests are what many individuals might choose if given a few quick moments to decide with friends. Another prominent aesthetic element is the film’s implementation of inter-textuality. Boggs (2006) notes that theorists such as Roland Barthes have contended that all texts must be considered within their broader artistic context. Armageddon makes significant inter-textual references in regards to the team. They are called the ‘wrong stuff,’ a comedic reference to Tom Wolfe’s book ‘The Right Stuff’ and the film of the same name. The characters also argue who is Hans Solo and who is Chewbacca, a reference to the Star Wars films. Further connections are established through the film’s use of music. Some of the most prominent songs used are those by Aerosmith, an in-direct reference to the Liv Tyler character, Grace, who is Aerosmith lead singer Steven Tyler’s daughter. While the essay has established earlier that the film is heavily reminiscent of the classic Hollywood star vehicles, aesthetically it adopts many of these classic filmic elements. Perhaps nowhere is this aesthetic more exemplified than in the frequent close-ups that Grace (Liv Tyler) receives. While the close-up is a technique implemented in most film production, Bordwell (2009) notes that the classic Hollywood close-up creates a halo like effect, oftentimes as means of highlighting the protagonist’s virtue or je-ne-sais quoi. This aesthetic is applied to Grace, as shots of her face are inter-spliced into the narrative, much like they would be with Elizabeth Taylor or Lauren Bacall. The effect is complex. To one extent it functions as a means of situating the aptly named Grace, as a sort of repository of heavenly virtue. In another sense the effect draws a conscious connection between Armageddon and the films of classic Hollywood. One considers that while Armageddon is an unabashedly commercial production, it was chosen for inclusion into the Criterion Collection (Dessem 2005). Such an inclusion seems indicative of the film, not as a genre-defining masterpiece, but rather as the comprehensive and complete realization of the late-20th century big budget Hollywood aesthetic. Indeed, this parallel between critical and artistic legitimacy became a prominent consideration on the film’s release. Individuals such as Daly (1998) derided the film for being overhyped and ineffective. Lichtfield (2007, pg. 54) notes that, “Bay wrote a letter to the editor of Rolling Stone asking if Travers knows something "that the other two million people around the world who saw my movie don't?" Such statements seem to implore that the film be analyzed as a piece of mass message making, rather than an auteur driven object of art for art’s sake. Conclusion In conclusion, this essay has deconstructed Michael Bay’s film Armageddon. In this context of understanding, the film has been examined in terms of narrative, character, technical, and aesthetic elements. While the close-reading unearthed many of elements, there are a number of prominent insights that emerged. The film is considered as assuming classic Hollywood conventions and eschewing more ‘artistic’ means of expression. Prominent uses of close-ups, parallel narrative structures, montage, major studio actors, a happy ending, and sensational visuals firmly entrench the film’s technique. Furthermore, the film is also demonstrated to adhere to the conventions of the disaster film through its subject matter and its implementation of the camp aesthetic. Ultimately, while film’s critics derided the work for its commercial intentions, it is clear that the filmmakers’ primary concerns were implementing popular archetypes as a means of gaining international popular acclaim. References Boggs, J. (2006). The Art of Watching Film. New York: McGraw-Hill. Bordwell, D., Thompson, K. (2009) Film Art: An Introduction. New York: McGraw Hill. Chandler, G. (2009) Film Editing: Great Cuts Every Filmmaker and Movie Lover Must Know. New York: Michael Wiese Productions Daly, S. (1998). "The Hype That Fell To Earth". New York Post. Dessem, M, (2005), #40: Armageddon , . Available from: , :  http://criterioncollection.blogspot.com/2005/09/40-armageddon.html [Accessed: Feb 11, 2012]. Ebert, R. (2005). "Ebert's Most Hated". Chicago Sun-Times. Feil. K. (2006) Dying for a Laugh: Disaster Movies and the Camp Imagination. Wesleyan. Lichtenfeld, E. (2007). Action Speaks Louder. Middletown, Connecticut: Wesleyan University Press. "Tales from the Script: Hollywood Screenwriters Share Their Stories - - Nonfiction Book & Film Project About Screenwriting". (2011) Talesfromthescript.com. Law, John. (2010). Disaster on film. New York: Aplomb Publishing. Read More