Drive (Nicolas Winding Refn, 2011)

[Michael Kerpan]

Michael - the violence really doesn't comprise much of the film.

Even so, it sounds too extreme for me. (for instance, Cyclo and Election 2 and Sympathy for Mr, Vengeance are all on my "not likely to ever re-watch" list). ;~}

[domino harvey]

Michael - the violence really doesn't comprise much of the film.

Even so, it sounds too extreme for me. (for instance, Cyclo and Election 2 and Sympathy for Mr, Vengeance are all on my "not likely to ever re-watch" list). ;~}

Mfunk is being a little too persistent in furthering this "the film is not violent" fiction-- the film is very violent, it's just not wall-to-wall dense with the stuff. But several cumulative minutes of graphic, extreme violence still warrants caution to those sensitive to such things

[knives]

Yeah, in this case it's definitely important to consider the quantity per minute and I think the hotel scene would be too much for most people even if it lasts all of ten seconds.

[mfunk9786]

I'm just trying to reign in the "It's pretty much just a Noé film" fiction. I would hate to steer someone wrong, but in my experience, there's a huge difference between a film with unavoidable violence and a 'cover your eyes when necessary' type of film, which this one is. Having been around people in my own life who are totally unable to watch onscreen violence, I've learned to be sensitive to that distinction.

[Mr. Ned]

You start thinking about every little twitch of the face and considering what it might suggest about confused (perhaps unknowable, perhaps brutally selfish) intentions/"drives" rather than just moving along to who will say what next to get the ball rolling. I can see why that might seem hollow or even pseudo-intellectual to some, but it's the sort of experience I find myself sensitive to and confused by in everyday life and it's gratifying to be able to see it under close consideration in the cineplex.

Yes! While I've found Refn's preference for slow motion and long takes mind-numbing in previous films (see: Valhalla Rising), it's executed beautifully here. There's a great balance to how the shots linger on empty faces and the slightest tics and gestural motions here, where you're never quite sure if it's hollowness or some stilted form of self-expression manifesting itself from the fray of multifarious desires roaming around beneath the surface. It makes an attentive viewer prick their ears and eyes at every cue and its potential possibilities, which make some of the more "hollow" scenes, like the party scene, reverberate with an emotional weirdness that sticks with you. The exchange Irene and Driver have in that scene in particular has stuck with me since I saw the film Friday, because it's simultaneously ridiculous and laden with so much unsettling possibility. As I said in my last post: you just know who the goodies and the baddies are in every story, or fairy tale, but then again, you have no clue what's going on at all. Is Driver an honorable, albeit violent, angel or a stymied powder-keg of masculine aggression and frustration?

I'm surprised there's been little mention of Irene and her place in the story. What do you guys think? Does she fit the blonde ingenue schematic in Driver's fantasy tale or is she consciously complicit and aware of his motives? Again, look at the party scene. I may have to see this again...

[flyonthewall2983]

Obviously she's not a babe in the woods when it comes to criminal activity, but I really don't think she's aware of who he really is until that elevator scene. When they get off, her face tells the story. Standard, by all appearances didn't seem to be what my father would call a "lifer on the installment plan", he did what he had to do likely to keep a roof over his young family's heads, and just got unlucky. But Driver is another animal altogether, and I think she wasn't prepared for that.

[Foam]

I think the only sense in which Irene is "on" to Driver--at least until the elevator scene--is that he obviously wants her, but I don't think that makes her a blonde ingenue either. Like Driver, I think she's trying to construct in her mind (and act into existence) a narrative that justifies her desire to upgrade from Standard. One of my favorite shots in the film is when she pins her hair back looking in the mirror between the cartoon shark scene and when she tells Driver that Standard's coming back. She's, at least temporarily, suppressing her sexual desire for the sake of her son/marriage, as opposed to how her bangs blew through the air in their first ride together. I think it speaks volumes about the intentionality of her actions, her awareness of the situation, and her status as not just a piece but a player.

[Zumpano]

So, if I really dug this; should I be headed to the Pusher trilogy next or Vahalla/Bronson since they're on Netflix?

[John Cope]

Any of them. They're all great and all of a piece with this.

[knives]

I agree though the recent two are more similar to this. The Pusher trilogy while my favorite of his work is closer to, not Dogme, but something like The Wire[/b]. It's been an interesting evolution to say the least.

[gcgiles1dollarbin]

I may be all alone on this one, but I found DRIVE thoroughly offensive and disgusting, and it made me reflect afterwards that Albert Brooks must be desperate for money, what with a family to support and all. (Too bad you can't outsource acting--or can you?) Maybe it's my old age, but as the years pass, I find the most repellent violence in movies to be the kind that pretends (or even half-pretends) to be moralistic and "sensitive"--maybe in part because it reminds me too much of our foreign occupations. In any case, now that I'm no longer a reviewer, I felt in retrospect that I was a fool for going to see this.

When I first read Rosenbaum’s feedback on Glenn Kenny’s site, I rolled my eyes, because it seemed so typical of the old polecat’s unremitting distaste for violence on the basis of what he believes to be its inevitable geopolitical implications. Notwithstanding the bilious response from an unmentionable loser that immediately followed (at one point accusing Rosenbaum of being a “pussy”), I have to admit that his hypersensitivities all seem conveniently couched in nationalist terms, at once denouncing and unwittingly sustaining the image of an imperialist America posing as a vengeance-seeker, a righteously violent power. To say the least, it’s a strain to draw this connection in the case of Drive.

Having seen Drive, I still think his “foreign occupation” comment is a non sequitur. However, I do think that the gruesome violence in Drive “pretends (or even half-pretends) to be moralistic and ‘sensitive,’” and this is what irked me about Refn’s attempt to ironize the themes of the film: he can’t escape the righteousness of the driver’s absurd vengeance and therefore he can’t wink at it. Gosling’s cipher performance worked beautifully until he got to the hotel room, the point at which the film entered another world of absurd posturing coupled with ridiculous violent effects. I disagree with mfunk that the violence is “starkly realistic,” and therefore cannot be qualified as “ultraviolent.” The violence in Drive is doted on and manicured with squishy crushy boomy Foley noise and nanosecond jumpcutting that lend the Gosling character superhuman ability; i.e., it didn’t seem any different than the violence in your average gore flick. The violence in Drive is, for all its bloodletting, a bit melodramatic. And I think that was partly Refn’s intention, except that he motivates it with a righteous cause, and the disjunction between these two things soured the film for me. Refn uses College’s “A Real Hero” twice, and I think he was trying to be ironic the second time around, but it still felt sincerely self-satisfied to me, which, if that’s the case, makes the dénouement no more interesting than the triumphant walk Judd Nelson takes across the football field in The Breakfast Club to the music of Simple Minds.

[MichaelB]

Mfunk is being a little too persistent in furthering this "the film is not violent" fiction-- the film is very violent, it's just not wall-to-wall dense with the stuff. But several cumulative minutes of graphic, extreme violence still warrants caution to those sensitive to such things

90-95% of Takashi Miike's Audition could legitimately qualify as a romantic comedy. It's the remaining 5% that's the problem.

[matrixschmatrix]

Unlike Audition, or say Reservoir Dogs, though, I don't think a significant chunk of this movie takes place in an atmosphere of violence- with the exception of a few scenes (Cranston and Brooks, for one) you aren't in a position where you sit and know something brutal is going to happen and you're going to have to deal with it- the violence happens, and the movie moves on.

[mfunk9786]

That's all I was saying.

[SpiderBaby]

I haven't seen this yet, but I have noticed a Scorpion on the back of his jacket in the trailer. Since Refn's other films seem to deal with masculinity, did anyone get any references to Scorpio Rising in this? It was my first thought based off the trailer and wonder if it was an influence before I see the film.

[NilbogSavant]

Interview with Erin Banach, costume designer on the film

the logo itself is a reference to one of the first music videos ever made by Kenneth Anger called Scorpio Rising. It was totally a Nicolas and Ryan thing, paying homage to a time of avant garde filmmaking.

[SpiderBaby]

Well that answered it. Thanks.

[jbeall]

Re: the violence issue. I agree that it was gratuitous, and that was the primary flaw of a film I otherwise enjoyed. And the annoying thing is that the film almost becomes a fascinating meditation on violence with Albert Brooks' character. The scene where

Spoiler

he slashes Shannon's forearm is affecting in a way as Bernie consoles the man he's just killed. Too bad we still had to see the visual of the spurt along with the (unrealistic) sound effect. His demeanor was in stark contrast to when he killed the low-level mafioso after sticking a fork in his eye.

Missed opportunity because of what I took to be Refn's excessive zeal for spurting and bone-crunching sounds, but it's not like Valhalla Rising hadn't prepared me for it.

[starmanof51]

Wow, I had this categorized as a must-see, but the last page and half of this thread have me just about ready to write it off (I seem to be of the Michael Kerpan school wrt violence).

[matrixschmatrix]

Re: the violence issue. I agree that it was gratuitous, and that was the primary flaw of a film I otherwise enjoyed. And the annoying thing is that the film almost becomes a fascinating meditation on violence with Albert Brooks' character. The scene where

Spoiler

he slashes Shannon's forearm is affecting in a way as Bernie consoles the man he's just killed. Too bad we still had to see the visual of the spurt along with the (unrealistic) sound effect. His demeanor was in stark contrast to when he killed the low-level mafioso after sticking a fork in his eye.

Missed opportunity because of what I took to be Refn's excessive zeal for spurting and bone-crunching sounds, but it's not like Valhalla Rising hadn't prepared me for it.

I'm honestly not at all clear how the effect- which is clearly meant to jar the viewer, not as something inherently enjoyable- detracts from the meditative quality of the scene.

I mean honestly, I'm somewhat squeamish about violence in movies myself, in some contexts- I really can't watch modern horror movies, or much of anything from the Texas Chainsaw Massacre school- but here it's used primarily as counterpoint in the dreamy, musical atmosphere the movie creates. It's not fundamentally a movie about violence and it doesn't expect the audience to enjoy the moments of violence, but it does expect you to be able to face things. I don't know that it's much more fundamentally violent than, say, Pan's Labyrinth.

[knives]

TCSM, unless you did mean Texas Chainsaw Massacre, is actually really low key with the violence. Don't get me wrong, it's one of the most disturbing movies ever, but I wouldn't call it a violent movie. Dirty is probably the better adjective.

[whaleallright]

I wish Rosenbaum would actually deign to explain, at length, what he sees as the exact connection between filmic violence and American foreign policy -- his "arguments" about this, which date back to the mid-1990s, usually take the form of passing sideswipes (the most recent example I can think of is in his review of No Country for Old Men). Does he mean to suggest that the connection is causal? If so, what's the cause and what's the effect? What's the vehicle by which one thing influences the other? Do both things spring from the same attitudes? If so, on whose part? And what of the many films from around the world -- India, Europe, China, even Africa -- that seem to exhibit a similar coupling of Sadean violence and moralizing? (Or what of a film like Drive, directed by a Dane and written by an Iranian who lives in the UK?) Does he simply chalk that up to cultural hegemony or some such thing?

Even if Rosenbaum has been more consistent than Armond White in his attempts to attack films for their supposed political implications, I'm not sure he's any more coherent. His retirement has made this worse, since he no longer even pretends to explain his attacks -- reducing them to the equivalent of online trolling.

One reason the violence in Drive didn't trouble me was that the entire film was so far removed from reality that the violence registered as just one set of aesthetic effects among many. I suppose this may be the very thing that offends Rosenbaum, but if so he would seem to be building more on the familiar "media violence desensitizes us to real violence" argument rather than something specifically about US foreign policy. I would argue that something like Elephant is far more suspect. Both Van Sant and Refn are in it for the art-house glory, but only Van Sant has the nerve to build his pastiche of Béla Tarr and Alan Clarke on a real and recent tragedy. (Rosenbaum called Elephant "startling and brilliant" and a masterpiece. I'll grant that it's startling.)

[matrixschmatrix]

TCSM, unless you did mean Texas Chainsaw Massacre, is actually really low key with the violence. Don't get me wrong, it's one of the most disturbing movies ever, but I wouldn't call it a violent movie. Dirty is probably the better adjective.

Yeah, I might not be expressing myself well there- it's not necessarily being forced to watch specific acts of violence that bothers me, it's the general atmosphere and context in which they're presented. TCSM isn't upsetting to me because of what you watch, but because I feel like I'm being forced to experience a world almost entirely defined by violence and cruelty committed against the weak and the helpless- I have a really hard time dealing with that.

Drive certainly is not that. You could make a case that by making violence something 'fair', where you don't feel that sense of violation, it's soft-peddling it. I think that's the case that Rosenbaum's trying to make, that by allowing acts of brutality to be heroic rather than sickening, it reinforces the American belief that the violence we enact is acceptable (because we're on the right side, you see.) In that context, heightening the violence (which is meant to be a tactic to force the audience to reject it) may just make the issue worse- it makes you more unshockable, and perhaps makes you more willing to countenance real brutality in the name of your 'hero'. I think it's something we've seen actually happening- the connection between real-world torture of prisoners in Iraq and the representation of 'heroic' torture in 24 is fairly well documented and extremely worrying. There, the world is quite 'gritty'- meaning our putative hero has to get his hands dirty regularly- and the effect in-show is primarily to justify the dirt and not to tarnish the hero.

That said, I don't really think that applies to Drive, wherein I think the violence is honestly largely aesthetic. I don't think we're supposed to take any particular delight in it- it's not a slasher movie, where new and more 'creative' kills are a highlight- but broadly speaking I think the moral context of the movie is largely irrelevant to its purpose, as I see the movie as a mood driven exercise in style. It's difficult to imagine someone thinking of himself as Driver and going out and committing an atrocity in the movie's name, because I don't think it quite connects to the real world- it's almost closer to Kill Bill, I think.

[jbeall]

I'm honestly not at all clear how the effect- which is clearly meant to jar the viewer, not as something inherently enjoyable- detracts from the meditative quality of the scene.

I mean honestly, I'm somewhat squeamish about violence in movies myself, in some contexts- I really can't watch modern horror movies, or much of anything from the Texas Chainsaw Massacre school- but here it's used primarily as counterpoint in the dreamy, musical atmosphere the movie creates. It's not fundamentally a movie about violence and it doesn't expect the audience to enjoy the moments of violence, but it does expect you to be able to face things. I don't know that it's much more fundamentally violent than, say, Pan's Labyrinth.

I say this as someone who's not squeamish about violence in the slightest, but doesn't the fact that it's jarring to begin with prevent the possibility of being meditative? The gory sounds have the effect of ratcheting up the violence to fantasy levels, at which point meditation is at least muted.

[knives]

Spoiler

I think they're more a tool to help be meditative with. It's a clear symbol of change from how the camera has been treating the hero or in others words a contrast to the character's theme song. So maybe variations on the word meditate may be incorrect, but it does provide something to use when thinking on the film. The Driver would not seem so villainous without that jarring effect. It's the same thing in Perlman's death scene which while not graphic is shot and scored like a horror movie. It's a way of throwing reality as far as possible from the Driver's perception. The one moment where we really do in absolution entertain that perception is in the kiss rape scene and that presents the most jarring violence in the whole picture.