Drive (Nicolas Winding Refn, 2011)

[mfunk9786]

That's always what I've heard about studio films made under a studio banner - not necessarily about indies or something purchased at a festival marketplace, etc. But I don't remember where I heard it and my brain could just be making it up.

It should be noted, however, that a DVD screener has leaked onto the internet, and that could certainly result in less repeat business from people who liked the film the first time around.

[Brian C]

No doubt you've heard it - I've read the same thing, repeatedly. But as far as I know, it's just a guideline for big summer blockbusters, not something that really applies here.

Given how much production costs can vary, though, I'm not sure how much sense it makes anyway. I take it as something that was made up mostly to make the Dave Poland types sound like they know what they're talking about.

[MichaelB]

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.

Julian Assange seems to me to be a perfect example of a modern sociopath, and he doesn't appear to be violent with it.

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.

It opened in the UK on Friday to generally excellent reviews.

[eerik]

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 don't know where the limited release exactly ends and wide release begins, but according to boxofficemojo.com it is playing in 2,904 theatres, which is 18 more than on the opening weekend. Looks like a wide release to me but I've seen some people calling it limited...

Well, in Estonia it is distributed by a small, art-house oriented distributor but will also be playing in multiplexes.

[mfunk9786]

Over 1,000 or so is considered wide. A blockbuster of the Transformers sort would open in 4,000 theaters, and a film with a nationwide limited arthouse release would be in the low hundreds, tops.

[Zot!]

I didn't consider the violence to be a problem.
1. This is squarely in the noir/gangster tradition, and the basic attitudes are very much in keeping with everything from Sam Fuller to Tarantino. The violence is expertly done, and it isn't afraid to follow tradition.
2. While occasionally graphic, the violence is tasteful. Everybody talks about the scene in the hotel room, but what is not discussed

Spoiler

is that the final baddie is dispenssed off camera, and all you can hear is blood splatter. This restraint is again repeated when Nino meets his fate, and once more, when Albert Brooks is killed in shadow only. The actual gore on screen has got to be no more than 10 seconds. The fact that people are talking about it means that it is very effective.

3. Why does everybody complain about the gore, but not about the car chases. If this movie is supposed to be high art, and too good to show gore, then why do we have to sit through the most cliche genre exercise ever, the car chase. Because it is expertly done, and it isn't afraid to follow tradition.
4. This is supposed to be a "cool" movie. You are supposed to remark about how it was "cool" when he drove real fast, and his Scorpion jacket was cool, and yes, it was cool when such and such violent act was commited. Action movies have become so bad that when one is actually decent, people think they are watching arthouse fare.

That being said, I think this thing went of off the rails once the plot started to take over. The motivations of the characters seemed unrealistic and the desire to wrap things up was rushed. It was like 1 hour of slick style and 30 minutes of hurried plot. Regardless a victory on its own terms. I had fun.

[matrixschmatrix]

I think the complaints about the violence are more on moral/ethical grounds than grounds of taste- you'd be a fool to insist that a deliberately postmodern pastiche work like this was high art and ought therefore to be pure of low generic touches.

[Zot!]

I think the complaints about the violence are more on moral/ethical grounds than grounds of taste- you'd be a fool to insist that a deliberately postmodern pastiche work like this was high art and ought therefore to be pure of low generic touches.

Agreed, but if violence in films of this type is standard fare, and while this did a good job of making the violence violent, what sets it apart in terms of being amoral?

Spoiler

An antihero who kills bad guys indiscriminently is par for the course. Rambo wiped out half of Cambodia in his last outing.

edited for spoiler*

[JMULL222]

But is it indiscriminate? I think there's two very different points against that.

Spoiler

The first being that Gosling is, whether the act itself is necessary or not, enjoying the violence. The creeping smiles, the unneeded stomps, and particularly the Michael Myers-esque stalking and killing of Nino would seem to suggest he does, which certainly recolors his 'antihero doing what's right' position.

Secondly, and perhaps more interestingly, is the possibility that he's placing himself in this "violent cycle" willingly (and likely subconsciously) by encouraging Standard to commit crime, by getting in line with Bernie, and perhaps even by sabotaging Irene's car (off screen) in the market scene. In that regard he could certainly be compared to David in Peckinpah's "Straw Dogs", that of a man who willingly or otherwise pushes himself into positions where he must be unrelentingly violent.

[matrixschmatrix]

I want to say here that while the car sabotage theory is pretty ingenious, when watching the movie again I really saw no evidence to convince me that was what happened- it's reading too much Travis Bickle into the character.

[Zot!]

But is it indiscriminate? I think there's two very different points against that.

Spoiler

The first being that Gosling is, whether the act itself is necessary or not, enjoying the violence. The creeping smiles, the unneeded stomps, and particularly the Michael Myers-esque stalking and killing of Nino would seem to suggest he does, which certainly recolors his 'antihero doing what's right' position.

Secondly, and perhaps more interestingly, is the possibility that he's placing himself in this "violent cycle" willingly (and likely subconsciously) by encouraging Standard to commit crime, by getting in line with Bernie, and perhaps even by sabotaging Irene's car (off screen) in the market scene. In that regard he could certainly be compared to David in Peckinpah's "Straw Dogs", that of a man who willingly or otherwise pushes himself into positions where he must be unrelentingly violent.

Spoiler

Ok, but this is similarly accepted for most mainstream films. Schwarzenegger nailing a nameless victim to the wall with a giant knife and quipping "stick around" in Predator, or the scene in Yojimbo where he delights in the two gangs tearing eachother apart.

[mfunk9786]

Is it bad that I would have [at least tried to have] done exactly what Gosling's character does in this film?

[matrixschmatrix]

Haha I would hope that you would at least stop yourself

Spoiler

stomping on the guy's pulped skull

a little faster

[mfunk9786]

...I probably would have kept going longer.

*backs away slowly*

[flyonthewall2983]

I would have applied proportionality to the situation, and not dwell on it by making more of a mess than need be. Though I suspect one reason Driver did what he did was to send a message to anyone who would find what was left.

[James Mills]

I don't understand why most are so quick to overlook all the problems with this script. Why does Gosling not just call the cops and explain to them that he was merely driving these people to a robbery when 2 people were murdered by a pair of guys that attempted to murder him too? Why is Gosling so adamant about saving this girl and her son anyways (to the point that he says he'll kill Shannon, his only "friend," over inadvertently revealing their location) when they've only hung out a few times? What about her personality inspires some form of change in Gosling? And, literally, why are we relying on the same old broken down car devices for them to interact? Who are these placeholding "Eastern Family" thugs that are mentioned, and what are the real ties between them and Nino and co.? Why does Nino and the other guy keep trying to kill Gosling when all Gosling wants to do is give them their money back? Why are there these race car driving implications so early on yet never realized and why are its investors the same people responsible for this crazy heist that had nothing to do with Gosling? Are we supposed to believe this to be a plausible coincidence after Gosling clearly states "There's over 200 streets in this city" as the opening line of the film? Why are there not further complciations before Gosling simply walking up to these super villains and killing them as the film's "climax"?

Outside of some beautiful cinematography and a perfect opening, I find this film to be yet another severely overhyped disappointment in the worst year of cinema ever.

[Grand Illusion]

I certainly don't think this is one of those films where it sets to titillate on one hand and moralize on the other, and I reject the attempts to force it into that paradigm. I don't think the film inherently demonizes violence nor does it heroize it. Violence is simply one way of dealing with the situations that arise in the film world, up to each viewer when and if the Driver character ever goes too far.

As stated, much of the film is about Driver being a "hero," whether in his own mind or in the diegetic reality. I think the violence serves as a means to an end. He solves the problem, but ultimately the final "heroic act" is that:

Spoiler

tainted by this world, Driver just leaves the Carey Mulligan character at the end. She returns to his apartment, and he's gone. It wasn't the skull-smashing that made him the hero. He "solved" the problems, but, for once, he was able to deny his raw id (sex drive) and, in doing so, protected Irene. I'm not saying this logic isn't politically problematic when forced onto larger geopolitical cases, but is that really what this film is about? Or is it about this character?

Anyway, there are some great Hitchcockian shots that show the imminent threat right before that threat is revealed to the characters, and those really build the suspense. Also, I absolutely love that shot in the elevator after the door shuts on Carey Mulligan. The shot is from behind Gosling, and it frames the scorpion on his jacket across the breadth of his broad shoulders. The shadow spills over it, while Gosling is breathing heavy. It looks like the scorpion is alive. I'm a sucker for shots that completely encapsulate a moment or a film (especially ones that don't even have to show the main characters). Best shot I've seen all year.

Overall, cool film. Not mind-blowing as my Facebook news ticker would indicate, but definitely a solid riff on the Le Samourai-style of silent anti-hero with a bit of the ol' ultraviolence.

Why are there these race car driving implications so early on yet never realized and why are its investors the same people responsible for this crazy heist that had nothing to do with Gosling? Are we supposed to believe this to be a plausible coincidence after Gosling clearly states "There's over 200 streets in this city" as the opening line of the film?

This is the huge one that stuck out to me as a sore thumb. I honestly believe your other objections can be explained, but I'm too lazy to do so. This racing car coincidence though is pretty ridiculous. I know they did it for economy of characters, and to introduce the villains earlier, but it's silly.

[mfunk9786]

Yes, because calling the cops always gets a movie going

[Brian C]

This racing car coincidence though is pretty ridiculous. I know they did it for economy of characters, and to introduce the villains earlier, but it's silly.

Isn't this acknowledged by the Brooks character, though? Certainly he realizes the tragedy of the whole thing.

Besides which, I don't really see a problem here. Bernie and Nino are gangsters. As Jules Winfield might put it, gangsters do a lot of gangster shit. If the Driver's story gets him tied up in gangster doings, how much of a coincidence is it really that Bernie and Nino would be tied up in it? It's not like they're simply two random characters out of 15 million in Los Angeles.

[mfunk9786]

James Mills' arguments are all of the "well, then there wouldn't be a movie" variety, and those can't exactly be deconstructed without broad statements like, um, "well, then there wouldn't be a movie."

[Brian C]

James Mills' arguments are all of the "well, then there wouldn't be a movie" variety, and those can't exactly be deconstructed without broad statements like, um, "well, then there wouldn't be a movie."

Well, it's worth pointing out when a movie has a particularly implausible or otherwise ridiculous premise - I don't think filmmakers have privilege to run with just any old shit on the grounds that "well, then there wouldn't be a movie". No one ever gave Haggis's Crash that benefit of the doubt, to give an "LA movie with lots of coincidences" example.

I just don't find most of James's questions to be particularly meaningful in this case; even had they been answered, I don't see how it would have been a better film. I also disagree with him that the movie's under some obligation to explain every single minor plot detail, and anyway, some of the questions he asks are answered within the film (e.g., Nino's motivations).

[James Mills]

I just don't find most of James's questions to be particularly meaningful in this case; even had they been answered, I don't see how it would have been a better film. I also disagree with him that the movie's under some obligation to explain every single minor plot detail, and anyway, some of the questions he asks are answered within the film (e.g., Nino's motivations).

I don't believe one single line can account for an entire plot twist in the whole film. And mfunk, there are obviously an infinite amount of different devices that can be used in order to progress a plot, so we don't have to choose the ones that are most implausible. If these types of things didn't distract you though, to each their own. I'm curious as to how you guys felt about their relationship though, or rather the lack thereof? Am I really the only one that was wondering what about this woman ignited this transformation for the Driver?

We do a lot of work with BOLD Films so we had their screener and watched an earlier cut of the film with jolting sound levels, but something stood out: Social Network's theme song was played during the scene where Gosling sits with the girl at the restaurant (right after the kid and dad were attacked), was this actually in the final cut? What about the repeated usage of Brian Eno's "An Ending (Ascent)," did that also make the final cut?

[domino harvey]

I didn't care for the film but I can't even imagine going after it on the grounds that it's (gasp) ambiguous

[LQ]

I'm curious as to how you guys felt about their relationship though, or rather the lack thereof? Am I really the only one that was wondering what about this woman ignited this transformation for the Driver?

If you will recall, he only initially signed up for driving the getaway car - something that he's done many a time before. The film makes it obvious that Gosling is sexually drawn to her and charmed by her son...do you really find it hard to believe that he'd want to protect them both from harm if it meant a (seemingly) simple 5 minute task to save their skin?

[Galen Young]

As Jules Winfield might put it, gangsters do a lot of gangster shit.

All the wacky coincidences reminded me of those in Pulp Fiction. Nothing wrong with that.