criterionforum.org

CriterionCast.com put it at the top of a list of likely MGM titles to get a spine.

Looks like a slow rollout might have been a smarter move. The film had a nasty C- cinemascore over the weekend, suggesting that word-of-mouth from stupid mainstream filmgoer to stupid mainstream filmgoer will not be good.

mfunk9786 wrote:The film had a nasty C- cinemascore over the weekend, suggesting that word-of-mouth from stupid mainstream filmgoer to stupid mainstream filmgoer will not be good.

I have a lot to say about this one later but, for now, I'll simply mention that my audience seemed pretty rapt throughout, which was gratifying. At the end, however, I realized this may have been a mistaken assumption on my part and they may have just been bemused by the whole thing. As the couple in front of me got up to go the girl said to the guy, "It was way too slow but I really liked the way the blood came out of her head in slow motion." So at least they weren't totally disappointed.

Ha, just got back and everyone was howling at my showing. The wrong reaction probably, but at least it's a positive one (hated the parent in front of me though who brought her admittedly well behaved children with her, it's rated R for a reason). Could help but laugh at the 'Real Human' montage though. even by that point it was pretty clear that something was wrong with Gosling. The film on the whole offered a real nice contrast with The Limey. It's funny how similar they are for such radically different purposes.

Short podcast with screenwriter Hossein Amini. Interesting that he mentions Le Samourai and Shane.

First, I thought I had it made: afternoon matinee (though at full price-- $12! FUKK) with people dispersed sparsely within the huge theatre. Then two frat fucks sat right behind me right as the last preview started. I knew I was in for it when they laughed uproariously at the trailer for that second Johnny Depp Hunter S Thompson movie. In case anyone is curious, here are the things in this movie which are hilarious to the college youth of today:

• *Any show of emotion
  *Silence
  *Stealing a car
  *Old men masks
  *Strippers (also elicited a "HOLY SHIT" and a high five. I shit you not)
  *Violence of any sort

But they loved the scorpion jacket. And I could tell they loved it because they said so. Every single time it was on screen. Every. Time.

And yeah, three different people yelled out "Holy fuck" during several of the violent interludes and laughed uproariously. They were particularly in hysterics after the elevator scene. One young wag began telling us Carey Mulligan's inner thought process in the wake of that sequence, and it was hilarious, lemmetellya. As for the overall take, I leave it to the woman in front of me, who remarked on her way out of the theatre, "Well, that was just terrible."

Anyways, as for Drive itself... well, the score is phenomenal and this is the first film in a while where I couldn't wait to go out and pick up the soundtrack. Certainly it gives the LA in the nighttime a gloriously glossy sheen straight out of the eighties (as if the credits couldn't clue you in), and I was reasonably entertained by the film on the whole. But it felt awfully hollow and far more convinced of its brilliance than I ever was. I suspect that the violence strikes so many as comical because the film is so earnestly self-serious (the pause on Gosling's face in the aftermath of the hotel massacre almost deserves the snickers, and half a dozen non-violent moments abuse their pensive rights) that these moments never mesh with the rest of the picture. That's the point, I guess, but it seems cheap and counter-intuitive. And there's the pull-quote for the film if there ever was one.

domino harvey wrote:Anyways, as for Drive itself... well, the score is phenomenal and this is the first film in a while where I couldn't wait to go out and pick up the soundtrack. Certainly it gives the LA in the nighttime a gloriously glossy sheen straight out of the eighties (as if the credits couldn't clue you in), and I was reasonably entertained by the film on the whole. But it felt awfully hollow and far more convinced of its brilliance than I ever was. I suspect that the violence strikes so many as comical because the film is so earnestly self-serious (the pause on Gosling's face in the aftermath of the hotel massacre almost deserves the snickers, and half a dozen non-violent moments abuse their pensive rights) that these moments never mesh with the rest of the picture. That's the point, I guess, but it seems cheap and counter-intuitive. And there's the pull-quote for the film if there ever was one.

More or less my opinion as well, although I'll add that I really liked (in ascending order) Brooks, Cranston and Mulligan. The latter especially overwhelmed poor Gosling with her ability; her face is capable of showing so much, while Gosling didn't really bring much than an ability to look down, then up, then down again during all those long quiet stretches.

Additionally, for all the praise it's gotten for its cinematography, it seemed right out of the teal-and-orange playbook to me.

This is peripherally amusing: Refn's choice of language in a promotional BBC Breakfast interview alarms the presenters.

A rather excellent piece on the film's implied s & m content.

Saw Drive this weekend, loved it. I love the fact that it can be read two ways: as something of an existential Michael Mann-style actioner, or as a much more disturbing psychological character study. I'm having trouble deciding which interpretation carries more weight.

Also, a friend's description was "it's like David Lynch remade the Transporter." I can't remember another movie that (deliberately or not) alludes to other movies.

According to various reviews (and forum posts) I've read, Drive invokes Thief, Le Samourai, Live and Die in LA, The Driver, American Gigolo, Bullit, Taxi Driver, Shane, Punch Drunk Love, The Transporter, and the works of Scorsese, Mann, Kurosawa, Leone, and John Hughes. And I'm probably leaving out more.

There are like thousands of movies that allude to other movies.

I meant alludes to "as many" other movies.

That to me is the beauty of film. In general, I'm a stickler for how things connect to others like it. The one film people I'm reading say it reminds them of that's not on that list is A History Of Violence, mostly because of how realistic the end result of the violence is. Trying not to use "gore" because that's something I would specifically say about a horror film, which neither of these films are. What Refn does here (and certainly what Cronenberg has done since possibly Crash) is fuse the realistic nature of violence into something cinematic, without making it feel "fake". David comes out ahead a little in that category simply because of his understanding of the human engine through all the years he did those "body horror" films.

Michael Kerpan wrote:> If I had to use the K-scale, I don't know, I'd say the violence of Brother, but with the more
> sobering effect of Fireworks.

Thanks (sounds too violent for me, then). ;~}

I'd say so for sure.

Spoiler

At one point the hero smashes a guy's skull into pulp with his boot

Calling that 'face-kicking' is rather disingenuous!

From my perspective, it seemed like the punctuating moments of ultra-violence were all about Refn wanting show off how hard he is, one-upping other purveyors of Xtreme Sinema, Maaaan (like Noe, so I guess we've got confirmation of that, at least). They're completely gratuitous.

Really, because I think Fly's Cronenberg comparison is more spot on (though I was thinking more along the lines of Verhoeven). In all three cases the violence is cartoonishly over the top, but rendered creepy and down to earth by the realism of their effect.

Refn contacted Noé for advice on that cutaway that you'll be well aware of if you've seen Drive and read the rest of this sentence.

Maybe I'm not as sensitive as some to this sort of thing, but I just found the violence starkly realistic. And I'm not so sure that violence done in a realistic way qualifies as ultraviolence, so to speak.

But the harsh contrast between a depiction of the ultrarealistic effects of extreme violence and Refn's overall stylistic/aesthetic sheen does seem to be the point or at least part of it. This aspect of things made me think of Jarnatt's Miracle Mile (that has a similarly pitched elevator scene as well).

iiiiii

zedz wrote:From my perspective, it seemed like the punctuating moments of ultra-violence were all about Refn wanting show off how hard he is, one-upping other purveyors of Xtreme Sinema, Maaaan (like Noe, so I guess we've got confirmation of that, at least). They're completely gratuitous.

I don't necessarily disagree... like I said, I truly believe Refn enjoys the brutality in his films, and even without that article above, I think he's made it clear that he's into s&m of some sort... but I don't think it excludes other, even contradictory, relationships to that violence.

Refn isn't Peckinpah, but I don't think he's quite Noe, either.

Are you suggesting he's Clive Barker?

jbeall wrote:I thought Drive also channeled Leos Carax's Mauvais Sang . . . So very pomo

Bang on. I felt Carax whispering in my ear as I left the theatre. I suspect that when this drops in France early next month, the world of cinema will swallow itself entire.

zedz wrote:I'd say so for sure.

Thanks -- definitely a no-go.

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

As for more audience reactions: Saw the film for a third time tonight, after which a few guys in their late teens were walking out saying they were hoping for something "More like The Transporter with Ryan Gosling... not a bunch of people sitting around and being autistic." My country tis of thee

That autistic comment is interesting though. I doubt that's what they were thinking for the character, but it does fit with what they've mentioned about him.

I'll throw in with those who think the depiction of violence is purposeful. For me, it's to the extent that the whole film would probably fall apart without it. Those are definite ruptures in the self-justifying internal narratives that Driver as well as Irene have created for themselves. Without them the film seems to lose the limited introduction of an ironic perspective that, for me, means the difference between a good-looking cartoon and a fascinating study of how people are "acting" not just to each other, but to themselves. This is also why I think the slow motion and long silences are purposeful rather than just faux-arthouse window dressing. 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.

I've been lucky re: audiences. First viewing I was lucky enough to be totally alone with an enormous screen, and when I watched it again a few days later everyone seemed totally into it.