Drive (Nicolas Winding Refn, 2011)

[James Mills]

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?

Yes, frankly; I find it hard to believe that this character would do anything for anyone other than himself unless given substantial sentimentality to act otherwise. I also thought it went beyond the simple task, as at any point he could have left with the money (like we're made to believe his character would do earlier; this is his development, but it seems unmotivated given their relationship). The effusive tirade he gives Shannon (who is supposed to be his only friend) really tries to hit home the fact that he'd do anything for this girl and her son, but this had an inverse effect on convincing me.

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

I didn't want to say anything earlier in fear of being ostracized, but I was in disbelief when reading all these different interpretations of Driver's character as well.

[LQ]

Yes, frankly; I find it hard to believe that this character would do anything for anyone other than himself unless given substantial sentimentality to act otherwise. I also thought it went beyond the simple task, as at any point he could have left with the money (like we're made to believe his character would do earlier; this is his development, but it seems unmotivated given their relationship). The effusive tirade he gives Shannon (who is supposed to be his only friend) really tries to hit home the fact that he'd do anything for this girl and her son, but this had an inverse effect on convincing me.

There was enough sentimentality in the freewheelin' spin down the empty highway and the idyllic afternoon spent in the uh, hmm, trash-strewn swamp and the week or two?..approximately? that the Driver spent essentially in the father role of this family to convince me that he had sufficient motivation to protect this fragile, doe-eyed woman and her equally fragile, doe-eyed son. Plus, it fits his masculine persona and perhaps even his own crafted self-image to be protective of someone like Mulligan. As for leaving with the money, it also makes sense that he would need to find out exactly how much shit he was in and just how deep before hightailing it out of there; furthermore, again in reference to his persona, I doubt he would stand for his carefully constructed routine to be toyed with, even IF he didn't have these personal attachments. And as for the tirade against Shannon, that struck me as the outburst of someone who is cornered and scared - of course he's angry about Mulligan & Son entering into the mess because of Shannon's unknowing slip since he took the job to save them from harm in the first place. But his outburst doesn't end in him killing Shannon or anything...he's just angry and afraid about just how much this has spiraled out of control despite his best efforts to keep it simple and smooth.

[mfunk9786]

I love my wife.

[Zot!]

*Edit thanks for the PMs. My wedding invitation must have been lost in the mail.

I thought the biggest hole was that the gangsters never bother to follow through with using the girl/kid as a hostage, especially since they are aware of Driver's feelings. I would prefer the film would have just fully dispensed with logic, but the plot is definately a silly retread, and the attempt to "wrap things up" is certainly feels desperate. Still it's inconsequential, and the movie is fun.

[matrixschmatrix]

I love my wife.

Please explain this.
I thought the biggest hole was that the gangsters never bother to follow through with using the girl/kid as a hostage, especially since they are aware of Driver's feelings. I would prefer the film would have just fully dispensed with logic, but the plot is definately a silly retread, and the attempt to "wrap things up" is certainly feels desperate. Still it's inconsequential, and the movie is fun.

I think Brooks is the only gangster who knows of the connection between Driver and the family- to the rest of them, the only person for whom threatening them was relevant (Standard) was dead, so there was no point.

And I think Driver's sudden and fierce attachment to Mulligan and her kid is sort of the point of the movie. Not only is it the event that sets the plot in motion, it's the thing that pulls Driver out of his self-imposed isolation (which, since he cares for Shannon, is already imperfect) and which most reveals his movie-character sense of self. He is someone who obviously believes both in movie-style love and in going to absolutely any length to protect someone he movie-style loves.

Also, LA may be enormous, but any given neighborhood is pretty damn small, and gangsters are territorial- I would say it would be surprising if robberies and so forth were going on in Brooks and Perlman's territory without them having a piece of it. That's the whole fucking idea of organized crime.

[knives]

An other problem with your argument is that it seems to suppose that the Driver is a rational and logical human when the movie makes it clear that he's a little retarded. Also, and this has been the main point of discussion on the film anyway, he's constructing his own fairy tale to an extent and the police would get in the way of that story he wants to be in. You are attempting to rationalize an irrational person.

[James Mills]

Obviously the driver's attachment to the family is the point of the movie, but it doesn't make sense. The guy looks like Zach Morris and lives in a licentious town, there have undoubtedly been countless hot neighbors and hot moms that have hit on him, what makes this one different? What does this one possess that invokes moral questions within the driver? This needed to be elaborated upon for me to buy the transformation.

In Zotl's words, like the other characters' developments and roles in the film, their relationship feels "desperately wrapped up," but the more I dissect the film and realize the sheer amount of inconsistencies in its script, I'm beginning to think it was intentional to point out that the script itself is besides the point. Like the New Wave it pastiches, plot and development are secondary to the actual visceral enjoyment of the cinematic medium.

In this sense, I actually think many of you may be trying to rationalize a film that's irrational.

[Zot!]

I think James has it wrapped up, it is a minimalist genre exercise with precious little to say.

[matrixschmatrix]

I don't think it's Carey Mulligan's attractiveness that appeals to him- he's totally indifferent towards Christina Hendricks- so the multitude of attractive ladies in LA is irrelevant. The thing we see that draws him into interacting with them is him overhearing Mulligan and her son playfully bantering, and the obvious implication is that he's drawn towards human warmth and a family relationship, which his clinical life totally lacks.

Seriously, every single 'inconsistency' you've come up with isn't one, so I wouldn't go basing an interpretation of the movie on them. I mean, yes, the script does not reflect reality as we know it- but that's not an inconsistency, that's stylization. To be inconsistent, the movie has to fail to play by the rules it sets out for itself. I see no evidence that this occurs.

I mean, ironically, I do agree that it's largely a minimalist exercise in genre whose primary point is generating a mood and a tone, and I think it works very well on that level. I don't think it's doing any tricky "this is fake! aha, this is faker! double reverse irony fakeout!" stuff with the script, by any means.

[Brian C]

Obviously the driver's attachment to the family is the point of the movie, but it doesn't make sense. The guy looks like Zach Morris and lives in a licentious town, there have undoubtedly been countless hot neighbors and hot moms that have hit on him, what makes this one different? What does this one possess that invokes moral questions within the driver? This needed to be elaborated upon for me to buy the transformation.

"He's attracted to one woman but not another - INCONSISTENT!"

Tell me James, do you personally really see women as interchangeable sex objects in the way that you're describing here? One hot neighbor's as good as the next to you?

[matrixschmatrix]

beep boop beep my attract-o-tron registers an average rating of 8.6 in that neighborhood and carey mulligan is only a 7.5. does not compute.

[James Mills]

No need for condescensions. My implications were exactly what you guys are explicitly stating: that there's obviously something other than her attractiveness that gets to Driver, but why is it not explained? You don't think this character has seen other moms playing with their children? If this woman and her affectionate son broke the camel's back, why are the other straws of Driver's past alluded to? I think it's entirely too convenient to not be intentional.

Now that I think about it, the mere fact that we use the cliche car breaking down to connect these individuals is tongue in cheek proof to me that Refn is trying to point across the plot's lack of importance in this film. There are copious inconsistencies that you guys are seemingly choosing to ignore (why doesn't Nino and co. just take his money? Why doesn't the driver simply call the cops and explain that people are trying to murder him and this family for no faults of their own? Why isn't the driver's back story elaborated on to explain the necessary culmination of experiences that would suddenly entice him towards this human affection? How in the world does all of these coincidences happen in a matter of two weeks or less: Driver meets woman and dates her, woman's husband then gets out of jail, Driver gets new Nascar racing deal or whatever with a pair of randoms, husband gets into immediate trouble again while Driver just happens to be there, husband has to do a mission to repay his debt and Driver decides to help, Driver finds out that the whole thing was set up by the same randoms with the race car, Driver chooses to not take the money or call the cops, the randoms inexplicably choose not accept Driver's money...). And all of this is behind a character this is himself an aberration of normality, completely over the top and stylized in his actions and dialogue...

I mean, these types of holes could be noticed by any first day intern doing script coverage, so it's not like Refn and the gang aren't aware of them. I'm convinced it was purposeful to accentuate what the film actually excels in: cinematography, directorial innovation, acting... a myriad of visual superlatives.

[John Cope]

Obviously the driver's attachment to the family is the point of the movie, but it doesn't make sense. The guy looks like Zach Morris and lives in a licentious town, there have undoubtedly been countless hot neighbors and hot moms that have hit on him, what makes this one different? What does this one possess that invokes moral questions within the driver? This needed to be elaborated upon for me to buy the transformation.

No it doesn't. You're looking for psychological realism in a myth.

In Zotl's words, like the other characters' developments and roles in the film, their relationship feels "desperately wrapped up," but the more I dissect the film and realize the sheer amount of inconsistencies in its script, I'm beginning to think it was intentional to point out that the script itself is besides the point.

Bingo!

In this sense, I actually think many of you may be trying to rationalize a film that's irrational.

Not me. I couldn't care less about it not being "rational" whatever that's construed to mean. Generally speaking though to be rational is to be utilitarian or purely functionalist. That's what he is on the surface ("I drive.") Even later when he's caught up in the myth making and it takes over his actions can be rationalized according to the mythic template but that is imagination based and belongs to the exceptional human being. That tension and that striving, conscious or not, is what the film is really about. Purely functional sociopathy vs. mythic self making or reimagining, a capacity for this kind of recognition of disparity, the drive to fulfill the potential to be great.

[matrixschmatrix]

The driver's past experiences aren't elaborated on because they're explained with pictures, the same way his infatuation with Mulligan is explained. That's something movies do sometimes, they explain things by showing them to you rather than telling you about them. Which is maybe why first day interns aren't usually allowed to make script decisions.

Driver doesn't call the cops presumably because he, as someone who beats them at things regularly, doesn't think they are good enough at what they do to protect Carey Mulligan and her kid.

Nino and co don't simply take the money back Driver knows that the money was supposed to be going to them, which is dangerous- as explained in the plot. It's dangerous because Nino believes that the people he had the money stolen from, the East Coast mafia, will kill him if they know he stole it. There's a whole scene about it.

The husband's trouble coming shortly after his release from prison isn't a coincidence- it's something he owes Nino's organization for events that occurred while in prison.

The two-week compression and some of the character connections are somewhat artificial- though as we're introduced to Brooks and Perlman as gangsters, it doesn't seem much of a stretch that they're involved in local crime- but it's artificial in a way that literally dates back to Greek drama. It may not be realistic, but it's not remarkable in any meaningful way, and using it as evidence for some kind of Brechtian device to highlight unreality is not a good strategy.

Again, I don't disagree with your conclusion about what kind of movie this is, and I do think the mechanics of the plot are largely functional, links to get us from one mood and juxtaposition to another. That doesn't mean the plot doesn't make sense- it does- but it is somewhat insubstantial, and certainly not the purpose of the movie.

[swo17]

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.

What on earth?

[Brian C]

No need for condescensions. My implications were exactly what you guys are explicitly stating: that there's obviously something other than her attractiveness that gets to Driver, but why is it not explained? You don't think this character has seen other moms playing with their children? If this woman and her affectionate son broke the camel's back, why are the other straws of Driver's past alluded to? I think it's entirely too convenient to not be intentional.

My question to you was meant seriously.

I'm not even really sure what you're getting at here. Are you not personally attracted to Mulligan, and thus can't figure out why Driver is? Do people in your personal social life need to give soliloquies about people they're attracted to before you actually believe they're attracted to that person? Why is it such a hangup for you that Driver is attracted to Irene without an explicit reason?

Now that I think about it, the mere fact that we use the cliche car breaking down to connect these individuals is tongue in cheek proof to me that Refn is trying to point across the plot's lack of importance in this film. There are copious inconsistencies that you guys are seemingly choosing to ignore (why doesn't Nino and co. just take his money? Why doesn't the driver simply call the cops and explain that people are trying to murder him and this family for no faults of their own? Why isn't the driver's back story elaborated on to explain the necessary culmination of experiences that would suddenly entice him towards this human affection? How in the world does all of these coincidences happen in a matter of two weeks or less: Driver meets woman and dates her, woman's husband then gets out of jail, Driver gets new Nascar racing deal or whatever with a pair of randoms, husband gets into immediate trouble again while Driver just happens to be there, husband has to do a mission to repay his debt and Driver decides to help, Driver finds out that the whole thing was set up by the same randoms with the race car, Driver chooses to not take the money or call the cops, the randoms inexplicably choose not accept Driver's money...).

Again, some of these things are explained in the movie. Nino wants to eliminate Driver because Driver can tie Nino to the money, and he's afraid of what will happen to him as a result. And it's not at all hard to imagine why Driver doesn't want to call the cops - if you recall, he drives getaway cars during robberies, which is how he got the money in the first place!

Aside from that, most of what you describe as coincidences hardly sound like coincidences to me. It's not a coincidence that Driver met his next-door neighbor. It's not a coincidence that Shannon got a racecar deal with mobsters. It's not a coincidence that Driver decided to help Standard. It's not coincidence that Driver decided not to call the cops. It's not coincidence that Nino decided not to take the money.

By this logic, every plot point in every movie is a coincidence.

[James Mills]

The driver's past experiences aren't elaborated on because they're explained with pictures, the same way his infatuation with Mulligan is explained. That's something movies do sometimes, they explain things by showing them to you rather than telling you about them. Which is maybe why first day interns aren't usually allowed to make script decisions.

Driver doesn't call the cops presumably because he, as someone who beats them at things regularly, doesn't think they are good enough at what they do to protect Carey Mulligan and her kid.

Nino and co don't simply take the money back Driver knows that the money was supposed to be going to them, which is dangerous- as explained in the plot. It's dangerous because Nino believes that the people he had the money stolen from, the East Coast mafia, will kill him if they know he stole it. There's a whole scene about it.

The husband's trouble coming shortly after his release from prison isn't a coincidence- it's something he owes Nino's organization for events that occurred while in prison.

The two-week compression and some of the character connections are somewhat artificial- though as we're introduced to Brooks and Perlman as gangsters, it doesn't seem much of a stretch that they're involved in local crime- but it's artificial in a way that literally dates back to Greek drama. It may not be realistic, but it's not remarkable in any meaningful way, and using it as evidence for some kind of Brechtian device to highlight unreality is not a good strategy.

Again, I don't disagree with your conclusion about what kind of movie this is, and I do think the mechanics of the plot are largely functional, links to get us from one mood and juxtaposition to another. That doesn't mean the plot doesn't make sense- it does- but it is somewhat insubstantial, and certainly not the purpose of the movie.

What pictures are you referring to? I watched an earlier cut so perhaps there are nuances, but I don't remember seeing any pictures that depict Driver's past.

Good points, though I think a lot of what you're working with are based off assumptions, some more gracious than others. I still believe that there are far too many holes in this film to warrant its script as "making sense," but I can see how the argument could be made. Its cliches and stretches just feel too self-reflexive for me to believe that they're unintentional, I guess, and not meant to be read as tongue-in-cheek. I think I've said my peace on the matter and none of us seem to be budging, so agree to disagree.

Nobody got back around to me on the soundtrack question I had earlier; there's no way Reznor's theme from Social Network was actually in the final cut, was it? And was Brian Eno's "An Ending (Ascent)" used frequently in the final cut?

[matrixschmatrix]

Neither of those are in the final cut, no.

I don't mean 'pictures' as in still images, I mean that the nature of Driver's past and of his attraction to Mulligan are implied by the way he behaves, and what we see in his face. And yes, a lot of the plot is implied similarly- the movie shows and doesn't tell, and leaves a lot to your imagination. That's a good thing, not a plot hole. I mean, you're a Bertolucci fan, aren't you? There are almost no explanations for anything in Last Tango in Paris.

[James Mills]

No need for condescensions. My implications were exactly what you guys are explicitly stating: that there's obviously something other than her attractiveness that gets to Driver, but why is it not explained? You don't think this character has seen other moms playing with their children? If this woman and her affectionate son broke the camel's back, why are the other straws of Driver's past alluded to? I think it's entirely too convenient to not be intentional.

My question to you was meant seriously.

I'm not even really sure what you're getting at here. Are you not personally attracted to Mulligan, and thus can't figure out why Driver is? Do people in your personal social life need to give soliloquies about people they're attracted to before you actually believe they're attracted to that person? Why is it such a hangup for you that Driver is attracted to Irene without an explicit reason?

Aside from that, most of what you describe as coincidences hardly sound like coincidences to me. It's not a coincidence that Driver met his next-door neighbor. It's not a coincidence that Shannon got a racecar deal with mobsters. It's not a coincidence that Driver decided to help Standard. It's not coincidence that Driver decided not to call the cops. It's not coincidence that Nino decided not to take the money.

By this logic, every plot point in every movie is a coincidence.

Attraction is one thing, willing to risk his life for her and the kid (as well as forfeiting a million bucks) is another. And obviously I find her attractive, but I find lots of women attractive; this doesn't mean I'd do the aforementioned sacrifices for all of them. This is why I'm "hung up" on the idea that he'd do all this for her without even much deliberation.

And obviously none of those events are coincidences in their own independent rights, but when strung together it makes for a lot of actions to coincidentally happen in a single week or two's span. This all seems rather obvious to me so I'm worried that we're just arguing to argue at this point. I'll let you guys finish the debate on your own if you so choose it.

I don't mean 'pictures' as in still images, I mean that the nature of Driver's past and of his attraction to Mulligan are implied by the way he behaves, and what we see in his face. And yes, a lot of the plot is implied similarly- the movie shows and doesn't tell, and leaves a lot to your imagination. That's a good thing, not a plot hole. I mean, you're a Bertolucci fan, aren't you? There are almost no explanations for anything in Last Tango in Paris.

lol, that's actually my least favorite Bert film, but even then I think an argument could be made that the entire film (LTiP) seeks to expose his past through their interactions and relationship, whereas Driver's actions and character are attempted to be exposed early to explain his future actions in the film as opposed to his past (if that makes any sense at all).

[domino harvey]

James Mills, you misinterpreted my comment-- I was saying that even though i disliked the movie, there's nothing wrong with the film containing ambiguity

[Brian C]

Attraction is one thing, willing to risk his life for her and the kid (as well as forfeiting a million bucks) is another. And obviously I find her attractive, but I find lots of women attractive; this doesn't mean I'd do the aforementioned sacrifices for all of them. This is why I'm "hung up" on the idea that he'd do all this for her without even much deliberation.

Well, I'm not sure I would play angel of vengeance for anyone. It's just not in my nature. But then again, I'm not an adrenaline junky who drives getaway cars for criminals I don't know, either. I think you're overlooking that key part of his character - he's likely already predisposed to extreme macho gestures.

Besides which, the one assumption that you're resting on is that this is unusual behavior for him. I don't see any reason to think that's the case; it could just as well be that he's trying to build an emotionally secluded life after a previous string of similar disasters. For all we know, that's why he moved to LA to begin with, to escape whatever previous trouble he had made for himself elsewhere.

We can say with certainty, however, that he somehow has experience in dealing with extreme violence. We see it in his instinctive reactions during the hotel room scene and the other violent scenes, but also in the way he stands up to Cook in the first place.

[mfunk9786]

Another thread successfully ruined by illogical trolling. Winter's Bone 2.0. Remind me to never fix anyone up with James Mills, by the way - long conversations about why he doesn't like her that much until he's sure that no one more attractive will come along might be a turn-off for her.

[JMULL222]

Look, I'm not the piracy police - but you yourself is admitting its a movie about style, mood, feeling.... criticizing it on such a detailed level after watching an unfinished cut compressed down from film to a miniscule 700mb file.... of course you'd get hung up attacking something, watching a style piece in such conditions misses the whole point! Again, I wouldn't say anything if it wasn't playing in theaters nationwide as we type.... but cmon, this is like grading "Enter the Void" after watching it on an iPhone.

[James Mills]

Another thread successfully ruined by illogical trolling. Winter's Bone 2.0. Remind me to never fix anyone up with James Mills, by the way - long conversations about why he doesn't like her that much until he's sure that no one more attractive will come along might be a turn-off for her.

As usual you resort to nonsensical petulance and whining rather than engaging in any dialogue that challenges your own viewing of a film. Please show me where I performed any "illogical trolling." Will you ever grow up?

I learned a lot about this film through these conversations, and I hope those who interacted with me might have thought of things from another angle as well. Thinking outside of your own box is not a bad thing.

[Mr. Ned]

So after two pages of riff-raff, we're right back where we started: Driver's heroism is slightly irrational and deranged and so the film's aesthetics are resemblant of a similar derangement, peppered with references to other films, directors and sub-genres that accentuate characters who are slightly dissociated from reality and lost in their own self-narration. It just...doesn't...make...sense...

I wasn't aware we needed to apply some sort of morality onto this, as if the inherent impracticality of the character, and in turn the narrative that propels him or her, is a hindrance to its successfulness as a film. Refn isn't someone I expected intellectual aptitude of the highest order from, but give the film a break: it's visually arresting, mentally stimulating and it sticks with its audience, as evident in this thread. Pooh pooh if it isn't perfect; 99.9% of artwork isn't, and doesn't have to be.