Drive (Nicolas Winding Refn, 2011)

[gcgiles1dollarbin]

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.

Nicely put, particularly with regard to Rosenbaum's point!

I would only wonder if

Spoiler

shotgun bursting head, shower curtain rod (I think) impaling man, razor cutting lengthwise along forearm, fork in eye followed by kitchen knife stabbing, car T-boning second car, and knife slashing throat

don't in some way up the ante by elaborate increments in a slasher-film-like exhibit of murders.

I too (perhaps sadly) have no problem with screen violence, but in Drive's case, I don't think it was meant to be comic excess à la Kill Bill. I think Refn is trying to offer up an enigmatic anti-hero like The Man With No Name, only without the few complications of self-interest that made Eastwood's character more than just a do-gooder. Refn is trying to mix altruism and psychopathy in a way that seems disingenuous and awkward.

[whaleallright]

The description of films as "meditative" is, with a few exceptions, about as irritating and nearly as meaningless as describing them as "transcendent."

In particular, I wonder if those who would apply the word to this film have a grasp on what it means in common parlance, viz.:

med·i·ta·tion   [med-i-tey-shuhn]
noun

1. the act of meditating.
2. continued or extended thought; reflection; contemplation.
3. transcendental meditation.
4. devout religious contemplation or spiritual introspection.

I've been repping for this film, but the idea that all the tenebrist long shots of Los Angeles locations or inexpressive close-ups of Ryan Gosling -- much less a scene where Albert Brooks slashes the arm of a garage mechanic -- are meant to inspire "extended thought" in any meaningful sense is laughable. This is not to say that I subscribe to idea of this film, or any other, being "thoughtless fun." Our levels of involvement with any film are complex and constantly shifting. But to label this film as "meditative" (which I don't see as an inherent virtue btw) -- implying that it is designed to give us space to reflect at length on something of consequence -- is to seriously lower the goalposts.

Anyway, I think the mix of violence and sentimentality in this film has to be read through its status as pastiche. Gosling and Refn have stated that they wanted to make "Pretty in Pink with gore" or something similar -- the film is in part a self-conscious mashup of two contemporaneous genres or modes. That it rarely devolves into archness is entirely to its credit.

[knives]

Well technically it has wrought extended thought since we are still thinking (and talking) about the film long after it's over. Though I agree that the film itself is not meditative.

[whaleallright]

Agreed. There is a difference between a film that inspires conservation and a film that actively solicits, during its running time, a "meditative" engagement.

[matrixschmatrix]

I don't know that 'meditative' applies to the movie as a whole, as it has far too much visceral effect for that, but I think it's a not-unreasonable term for both that specific scene with Brooks and Cranston- which does have a specific and thoughtful tone that's not present in most of the movie, maybe because Gosling's character (and his implied worldview) aren't in it- and for the zoned-out feeling of staring at Driver's sort of ecstatically blank look while driving with music on. It's two different versions of meditation- the former, reflection on an actual thought, and the latter, a sort of thought-annihilating trance state- but I do think both have a legit claim to the term.

[hearthesilence]

I saw this last night, not knowing what to expect. I did skim a bunch of reviews as well as some responses here, but only enough to get a general impression.

The first half felt promising, but as soon as the blood flowed profusely, I thought the picture went off the rails. It felt Refn (whom I'm not familiar with) was doing two things at once and both cancelled each other out.

On the one hand, Gosling's character was a sociopath, similar to the way Travis Bickle was a sociopath. If Gosling interpreted his character as someone whose head got lost in the action movies he made, then Refn seemed to undermine his efforts with the way he directed the action scenes, particularly the violent ones. A friend I was with said he believed these scenes were meant to show Gosling as a sociopath, but I think that came across in only one scene, when Carey Mulligan's character was there to react to his actions...

Spoiler

...repeatedly stomping on a hit man's head, long after he stopped moving, to the point where it basically exploded under Gosling's foot.

Elsewhere, it felt like Refn really wanted this stuff to come off as action film heroics, like in the motel ambush. Looking back, the film may have swayed back and forth a bit between both sensibilities, which doesn't really work for me.

Moments like Gosling's character walking around stained in blood seemed undermined by the fact that no one else in the world seemed to care. I'd like to think that this was a tongue-in-cheek statement, but it seemed more ill-conceived than anything else.

Later on in the film, when Gosling's character is wearing the emotionless, almost inhuman looking mask, it seemed to underline what Gosling saw in his character, but again, with scenes preceding and following this moment leaning towards a 'heroic' presentation of his brutal actions, everything didn't gel into a coherent piece for me. I almost want to call it confusion, but considering how controlled Refn's direction is, I think there were just two ideas at work that cancelled each other out.

So a very problematic film. I'd certainly recommend the first half, but it really goes terribly wrong after that.

[knives]

I wouldn't say any of those moments come across as heroic. The Hotel sequence is pure survival instinct while the moment on the beach is scored and directed like a horror film.

[hearthesilence]

Spoiler

With the motel scene, maybe, but showing Hendricks' head explode in close-up and slow motion felt pretty juvenile.

As for the scene on the beach, I agree - going back to what I said before, as part of that sequence where Gosling wore the mask, it suggested sociopathic tendencies, but again, looking at other scenes preceding and following that sequence, it wasn't a consistent idea.

[John Cope]

Jim Emerson on Drive's influences and inspirations.

[Finch]

Meh. The opening sequence is magnificent, but the rest of the film never delivers on its promise, opting instead for a self-importantly lugubrious rendition (why show any minor action normally when you can show it in slo-mo?) of a pretty thin comic book story and characters. And unfortunately, we're talking sentimental / pseudo-deep 'gwaphic novel' comic book, not breezy, action-packed comic book. The torpor is punctuated by moments of extreme gore targetted at the fanboys, but I can't imagine they'd be particularly satisfied by the rather constrained action sequences, swamped as they are by long stretches of moody gazing.
The actors do their best with the very thin material - though everybody involved seems to think that simply casting Albert Brooks against type is stunt enough to keep his character afloat - and it's sort of interesting in an abstract way seeing how the film goes about trying to construct Ryan Gosling as Steve McQueen redux. But these are pretty meagre pleasures.

My thoughts exactly though while I really liked Gosling's performance in Blue Valentine, I found him rather dull here. I liked individual scenes in the film but never truly connected with it. One of the year's biggest disappointments for me - give me Walter Hill's The Driver anytime of the day over this.

[matrixschmatrix]

Spoiler

With the motel scene, maybe, but showing Hendricks' head explode in close-up and slow motion felt pretty juvenile.

As for the scene on the beach, I agree - going back to what I said before, as part of that sequence where Gosling wore the mask, it suggested sociopathic tendencies, but again, looking at other scenes preceding and following that sequence, it wasn't a consistent idea.

Honestly, I'd think it was dull if the movie reduced Gosling's character to a sociopath- that's something I've seen over and over again, and I find it both uninteresting and somewhat dishonest to suggest that horrific violence is something only sociopaths do. His character is obviously a strange and in some ways unwell man, but I'm glad the movie didn't just batter us over the head with it.

I was thinking again about the argument I presented earlier (the one I thought Rosenbaum was making), and I think it's somewhat contradictory- if you object to making violence 'fair' a situation in which both parties are capable of injuring the other (rather than a strong person attacking the helpless) because it seems less repellent to the audience, and thus justifies violence, I think that's making the opposite argument from the one that posits that truly horrific violence intended to be repellent to the audience only turns them on. Thinking again about 24, the truly objectionable material to me is the use of torture- by definition an attack against the helpless- being presented as heroic, so the situation there is meaningfully different.

[Mr. Ned]

Honestly, I'd think it was dull if the movie reduced Gosling's character to a sociopath- that's something I've seen over and over again, and I find it both uninteresting and somewhat dishonest to suggest that horrific violence is something only sociopaths do. His character is obviously a strange and in some ways unwell man, but I'm glad the movie didn't just batter us over the head with it.

I was thinking again about the argument I presented earlier (the one I thought Rosenbaum was making), and I think it's somewhat contradictory- if you object to making violence 'fair' a situation in which both parties are capable of injuring the other (rather than a strong person attacking the helpless) because it seems less repellent to the audience, and thus justifies violence, I think that's making the opposite argument from the one that posits that truly horrific violence intended to be repellent to the audience only turns them on. Thinking again about 24, the truly objectionable material to me is the use of torture- by definition an attack against the helpless- being presented as heroic, so the situation there is meaningfully different.

What does sociopathy even mean, exactly? I always thought it implied a cunning sort of manipulation of others to avoid one's shame and guilt; violence is something that may or may not stem from that. Driver doesn't really do that here, save for maybe the grocery store parking lot which is ambiguous enough to be read a couple different ways. All the violence he does in the film, overwrought and vicious though it is, is out of defense -- either self-defense or in defense of Irene and Benicio. Granted, his dispersal of Nino channels Michael Myers, but it's obvious he cares about people besides himself: the worrisome thing is he cares too much, and too soon. Definitely doesn't find the bill of sociopathy (a term so oblique it needs to be nixed from everyday vocabulary, tbh).

Even so, outside of Nino's death, aren't all of Driver's violent altercations sort of 'fair' in the sense that he's defending himself? The hotel room fits that, as does the elevator; Bernie Rose, too. He doesn't actively seek out any of those events except when he "dons the mask," literally and figuratively, when he is on the outside looking in at Nino's pizzeria. I think Refn's use of violence was more aesthetic/genre-related than making some pointed criticism about its ruthlessness and theatricality; it's not over-the-top enough to be sufficiently Cronenberg, but there's an attentiveness to its innate histrionics, a commentary that's ladled quite generously over the rest of the film's aesthetics.

And after a weeks' time, I'm again thinking this was a near-hit, like I did when I first left the theater. It might not be the best film this year, but it's the most difficult to supply final judgment to.

[flyonthewall2983]

Even so, outside of Nino's death, aren't all of Driver's violent altercations sort of 'fair' in the sense that he's defending himself? The hotel room fits that, as does the elevator; Bernie Rose, too. He doesn't actively seek out any of those events except when he "dons the mask," literally and figuratively, when he is on the outside looking in at Nino's pizzeria.

This is how I feel, and I think the one thing that has stuck with me most since leaving the theater is the question of how he got this way. There's virtually no backstory for his character, save his relationship with the mechanic. And because of that relationship, you don't get the impression that he's just some version of Eastwood's Man With No Name. Ryan channels that in his stillness, but you still get the feeling there is a man underneath. With a past, with dreams (this is obviously manifests itself in the relationship he tries to cultivate with Irene and her son), and even maybe a family.

I wish I could remember the quote in full, but Michael Mann once said the real experience of a movie is how you think about it once you're finished watching it. And to expand upon that, films are only as good as deep and as much as you think about what you've seen, and how it spoke to you. I found it very fitting of him to say that, as most of his work has done exactly that with me. And Drive is definitely in that category.

[Yojimbo]

Meh. The opening sequence is magnificent, but the rest of the film never delivers on its promise, opting instead for a self-importantly lugubrious rendition (why show any minor action normally when you can show it in slo-mo?) of a pretty thin comic book story and characters. And unfortunately, we're talking sentimental / pseudo-deep 'gwaphic novel' comic book, not breezy, action-packed comic book. The torpor is punctuated by moments of extreme gore targetted at the fanboys, but I can't imagine they'd be particularly satisfied by the rather constrained action sequences, swamped as they are by long stretches of moody gazing.
The actors do their best with the very thin material - though everybody involved seems to think that simply casting Albert Brooks against type is stunt enough to keep his character afloat - and it's sort of interesting in an abstract way seeing how the film goes about trying to construct Ryan Gosling as Steve McQueen redux. But these are pretty meagre pleasures.

My thoughts exactly though while I really liked Gosling's performance in Blue Valentine, I found him rather dull here. I liked individual scenes in the film but never truly connected with it. One of the year's biggest disappointments for me - give me Walter Hill's The Driver anytime of the day over this.

I haven't seen it yet, but I've a feeling I'll be agreeing with you, Finchy

[matrixschmatrix]

What does sociopathy even mean, exactly? I always thought it implied a cunning sort of manipulation of others to avoid one's shame and guilt; violence is something that may or may not stem from that. Driver doesn't really do that here, save for maybe the grocery store parking lot which is ambiguous enough to be read a couple different ways. All the violence he does in the film, overwrought and vicious though it is, is out of defense -- either self-defense or in defense of Irene and Benicio. Granted, his dispersal of Nino channels Michael Myers, but it's obvious he cares about people besides himself: the worrisome thing is he cares too much, and too soon. Definitely doesn't find the bill of sociopathy (a term so oblique it needs to be nixed from everyday vocabulary, tbh).

True enough- I think 'sociopath' is used to mean 'someone who does things without normal emotional affect', which isn't an accurate use of an already loose term.

Even so, outside of Nino's death, aren't all of Driver's violent altercations sort of 'fair' in the sense that he's defending himself? The hotel room fits that, as does the elevator; Bernie Rose, too. He doesn't actively seek out any of those events except when he "dons the mask," literally and figuratively, when he is on the outside looking in at Nino's pizzeria. I think Refn's use of violence was more aesthetic/genre-related than making some pointed criticism about its ruthlessness and theatricality; it's not over-the-top enough to be sufficiently Cronenberg, but there's an attentiveness to its innate histrionics, a commentary that's ladled quite generously over the rest of the film's aesthetics.

I do think his acts of violence are largely fair, in the sense that he generally doesn't attack people who can't defend themselves- I was bringing it up earlier because I think there is a school of thought that decries making violence fair in that sense, because it means that violence can be justified. It's a view for which I have some sympathy, but I don't think it's fully applicable here.

There's also a performative aspect to his violence, though I'm not clear on whether that's meant to be sort of a fugue-state loss of control or his idea of showing off or showing himself for what he truly is. Regardless, it does push him beyond mere self-defense, as he has no interest in limiting the damage he does to his opponents.

[John Cope]

Salon critics weigh in on the Drive "backlash". Unsurprisingly the violence aspect is singled out as a likely reason.

[matrixschmatrix]

Bah, I'm not convinced by the market research responsible for the bad word of mouth claim- it seems to be sourced to one CinemaScore study, which I don't find compelling. That said, I'm willing to believe the marketing for this one doesn't match the substance- if people are coming expecting The Transporter, they're definitely going to be disappointed.

Honestly, though, it's a movie with a $13m budget that made $11m in its opening weekend, that seems fairly successful to me.

[flyonthewall2983]

It's total gross is now up to 21.4 million. I think that makes the idea that the film is a flop rather stupid now.

[matrixschmatrix]

Did it actually get a wide release? It's only in the arthouse here, so if it's a movie that played that circuit than I can't imagine that doubling its production budget could be gauged anything less than a success. If it got a wide release, though, I can see how the ad budget could have been bloated enough to push it deep into the red, even now.

I mean, fundamentally, I don't think it matters- certainly it doesn't change my opinion of the movie one way or the other- but it's an approach to the action/crime genre I'd be happy to see more often, and I'd be annoyed if it was remembered as a failure simply for failing to do blockbuster business.

[flyonthewall2983]

I saw it in a multiplex.

[knives]

Yeah it's the first film I saw at the AMC in about a year plus the ads at least in SD have been omnipresent.

[mfunk9786]

The general rule of thumb is that about the same amount as the budget of a film that's wide-released is spent on advertising it, so by the end of its run, Drive will have broken even or better, plus there'll be a home video release that will be icing on the proverbial cake.

[knives]

I believe the general rule is that 300% is the goal so it should only need about 10 million more to get into that perfect spot.

[matrixschmatrix]

It also looks like it hasn't even been released overseas at this point, and (to me at least) it seems like a movie that could do well in foreign markets- certainly judging it a failure based on the numbers right now seems absurd.

[Brian C]

The general rule of thumb is that about the same amount as the budget of a film that's wide-released is spent on advertising it, so by the end of its run, Drive will have broken even or better, plus there'll be a home video release that will be icing on the proverbial cake.

That wouldn't really hold true for a very cheap movie, would it? It's not like TV stations (or whoever) give you a break on the ads if the production budget is small.

Did it actually get a wide release?

It opened in 2886 theaters according to Box Office Mojo.