criterionforum.org

domino harvey wrote:For those of you struggling with your latent attraction to Gosling, this won't help

Hahaha, two of my favorite things, together at last

Like the Scorpion Jacket? You can buy it!

Wear the Jacket. Be the Driver.

WCW wrestler Sting would have loved that jacket back in the day!

The jacket ships Nov. 11th? I'm not gonna drop that much, but it would have been a good Halloween costume.

I kinda dig the idea it's attaining the ridiculous status of pop culture scapegoat, joining The White Album, Taxi Driver, and Marilyn Manson among others.

Anybody read the CinemaScope interview with Refn??

Refn considers Irene's role in fantasy and myth making: "Is she in love with the idea of Driver or is she in love with the man? It's like he's a figment of her imagination. Is it her dream or not?"

Still, I agree with most criticisms that none of these fascinating theories are really in the film, still I enjoyed it. It's lost some it's luster since seeing it in theaters. Reminds me of something a friend said about it, "it's an action movie for people who don't like action movies". Not that I entirely agree with this assessment, but I kept thinking of Thief and The Driver and how Mann and Hill seem unafraid to give up some control and let their films find themselves. Drive is feels constrained, but its still achieves an entertaining sense of cool.

Blu-Ray.com review.

This is quite late in the thread and this is several months after seeing the film, but I didn't care for it one bit. For any type of genre film, I have no problem suspending belief, plot-holes, ideas, etc., and throw myself in the hands of the film. But I just couldn't buy into the idea of a chaste super hero sacrificing so much in attempt to stabilize a woman and her child. The sentimentality was so saccharine it almost hurt my teeth. With a movie driven by a paper-thin plot and blotted with stereotypes, archetypes and phoneys, I'm surprised so many people fell for it's cool images, ultra-violence and cheap unrequited love to strike a chord among audiences. And sorry, but having a character not talk or reveal any facets of character or personality in order to built up some sort of air of mystery isn't deep but just lazy writing. People like James Mills are wasting time deciphering a character who's basically a non-entity. Thief, a film it seems to take so much from, features a protagonist who's unashamedly an insecure bastard who flaunts his expensive clothes, refuses to abandon his lifestyle and essentially destroys everyone and dump his family for some sort of distorted idea of independence. It's a character with flaws, personality, goals: a real person, not a breathing cardboard cutout.

But my biggest problem of all was it's depiction of my native city in the film. In a city where nearly 50% of all people are some sort of Latino (myself included), the one character who was Latino was an ugly weakling who just got prison and depends on the need of the incredibly handsome white-man to pull him out of trouble and fix his family. And when they plan the meeting, the meet in the most Salvadorean part of town, MacArthur Park, an area not known for white gangsters meeting up, but a place to buy cheap street goods and buy fake papers and IDs. And of course, when Driver and Carey Mulligan go to a Latino market in Echo Park, once again, there isn't a single Latino in sight.

For a film that wore on it's sleeve that it was a film about Los Angeles, the depiction of the city didn't go beyond what a tourist my see: downtown, the warehouses directly south of downtown and Echo Park (the hip spot for out of town transplants to move into). The only legitimate surprise was when Albert Brooks asked the Driver to meet him in North Hollywood for lunch at the penultimate scene in the Chinese restaurant.

I hate to use a Mann movie as an example again, but for a truer and more exciting depiction of Los Angeles in contemporary genre cinema, Collateral ends up being a perfect example. It's embraces a city where different cultures intersect, clash and mingle block by block even though we get around in car.

The Elegant Dandy Fop wrote:But my biggest problem of all was it's depiction of my native city in the film. In a city where nearly 50% of all people are some sort of Latino (myself included), the one character who was Latino was an ugly weakling who just got prison and depends on the need of the incredibly handsome white-man to pull him out of trouble and fix his family.

The film goes to all necessary lengths in establishing Standard's intention of keeping clean and honestly supporting his family. He's a weakling because he can't fight off two mob enforcers with baseball bats? Or because he grudgingly accepts the aid of a wheelman to avoid single-handedly robbing a pawn shop in service of people threatening to kill his wife and child?

I'm not clear on why you think Driver doesn't "reveal any facets of character or personality"- he's not an enigma, he's a man with bad ideas in his head who has decided to emulate the movies as far as possible. You seem to be reading the movie as though he's straightforwardly heroic, and the romance is something you can take at face value, which I don't think fits what's actually in the film. For one thing, like tarpilot, I thought Standard was a very decent character- he's neither weak nor cowardly, he's a decent human being who's stuck in a shitty position. I'd much more happily spend time with him than I would with Driver.

Point taken that we didn't see a lot of Latino characters outside of Standard, but I would guess that's for somewhat the same reason Taxi Driver fudged and made the Harvey Keitel character white-

Spoiler

outside of Standard and his family, most of the characters are people who get stomped to death by Driver, and if it were depiction of a white guy burning his way through a dozen Latinos, the violence would take on an unwonted and problematic racial element.

matrixschmatrix wrote:he's a man with bad ideas in his head who has decided to emulate the movies as far as possible.

It amazes me that Gosling's interpretation of the character, as stated in an interview, has suddenly become everyone else's. What at all in the film indicates that this is what is going on with "Driver"? Do we see a single indication that he even watches movies?

His character, as it actually exists in the film, not in Gosling's head, is exactly as Dandy Fop describes: an absurd blank who talks like a monomaniacal 6 year old ("I like trucks." = "I drive.", "Do you wanna drive?", etc. etc.), and is surrounded by cliches, sadism, and sentimentality. This isn't a critique of bad action movie world, this is bad action movie world.

yyyy

There are also a few moments when Driver's Le Samourai-esque ideas of how to do things come in conflict with the real world- as when he recites his 'five minutes' speech to the man assigning Standard the pawn shop robbery- and it's made clear how absurd his fetishistic behavior is.

tarpilot wrote:

FerdinandGriffon wrote:

matrixschmatrix wrote:he's a man with bad ideas in his head who has decided to emulate the movies as far as possible.

It amazes me that Gosling's interpretation of the character, as stated in an interview, has suddenly become everyone else's. What at all in the film indicates that this is what is going on with "Driver"? Do we see a single indication that he even watches movies?

It's a clear thread to which Refn obsessively alludes, starting with the first stuntcar sequence in which the camera moves past the makeup mirrors and shows the film-in-film “star” directly on the other side of the Driver's mirror, staring through him as he's prepped for the shot, an image later twinned when The Driver holds the stuntmask up to the reflection of the sunglasses, and again when Driver, now actually wearing the thing, gazes through the parlour window before he plays the part.

I never picked up on those allusions. For me, the stunt driver job just seemed like a plot device to make Driver the great getaway man he is. The shots of him with the mask as some sort of half-hearted attempt to make him some sort of being with flaws was a typically lazy move. The film seemed more focus on establishing the Driver as some sort of borderline maniac by drawing more attention to his face stomping actions and his threat of driving a bullet into into a man's head. Those are actions establishing character, not just some person looking into a mirror in thought. Its the type of shot where you can draw multiple conclusions, not just one, and still doesn't explain anything on Driver's part. Are these allusions to being a product of the movies something Refn is bringing up in interviews? If we can't draw those conclusions of him being a product of the movies (which the movie never really does) through the movie, then it's like I said earlier, its bad filmmaking on the part of the director.

And he's not plowing through a sea of Latinos and nor am I saying the film is racist or showing any racist viewpoint through the character. For me, it just comes off as lazy and ignorant of Los Angeles from the point-of-view of the screenwriter and the director and just disappoints me further, especially for a film that seems to revel in Los Angeles by naming real streets, having the protaganist work in the movie industry and its choice of locations.

matrixschmatrix wrote:There are also a few moments when Driver's Le Samourai-esque ideas of how to do things come in conflict with the real world- as when he recites his 'five minutes' speech to the man assigning Standard the pawn shop robbery- and it's made clear how absurd his fetishistic behavior is.

There was no conflict with the outside world though. His fetishistic behavior is there to create the "calm and cool" archetype; a man who has his plans together. And in the end, its this type of behavior that makes him the only one still alive by the end of the film.

tarpilot wrote:

The Elegant Dandy Fop wrote:But my biggest problem of all was it's depiction of my native city in the film. In a city where nearly 50% of all people are some sort of Latino (myself included), the one character who was Latino was an ugly weakling who just got prison and depends on the need of the incredibly handsome white-man to pull him out of trouble and fix his family.

The film goes to all necessary lengths in establishing Standard's intention of keeping clean and honestly supporting his family. He's a weakling because he can't fight off two mob enforcers with baseball bats? Or because he grudgingly accepts the aid of a wheelman to avoid single-handedly robbing a pawn shop in service of people threatening to kill his wife and child?

Again, it seemed like the poor guy was just used as a typical plot-device for bad crime films. That guy who has to do that one last job before they leave him alone and he can be safe, but of course it never works out. And does he accept the job grudgingly? He seems fine with having someone on his side helping him, no? He never comes of as keeping clean and honest. He's no martyr trying to practice honorable pacifism to stay clean. He lets them push him around to eventually do the job. There's no sense of self-defensive or protection for his family if the man can't even protect himself, which makes me feel the depiction of him is of a weak man.

The Elegant Dandy Fop wrote:

tarpilot wrote:It's a clear thread to which Refn obsessively alludes, starting with the first stuntcar sequence in which the camera moves past the makeup mirrors and shows the film-in-film “star” directly on the other side of the Driver's mirror, staring through him as he's prepped for the shot, an image later twinned when The Driver holds the stuntmask up to the reflection of the sunglasses, and again when Driver, now actually wearing the thing, gazes through the parlour window before he plays the part.

I never picked up on those allusions. For me, the stunt driver job just seemed like a plot device to make Driver the great getaway man he is. The shots of him with the mask as some sort of half-hearted attempt to make him some sort of being with flaws was a typically lazy move. The film seemed more focus on establishing the Driver as some sort of borderline maniac by drawing more attention to his face stomping actions and his threat of driving a bullet into into a man's head. Those are actions establishing character, not just some person looking into a mirror in thought. Its the type of shot where you can draw multiple conclusions, not just one, and still doesn't explain anything on Driver's part. Are these allusions to being a product of the movies something Refn is bringing up in interviews? If we can't draw those conclusions of him being a product of the movies (which the movie never really does) through the movie, then it's like I said earlier, its bad filmmaking on the part of the director.

Yes, why ever would we want to see motifs established visually in a movie

The Elegant Dandy Fop wrote:Are these allusions to being a product of the movies something Refn is bringing up in interviews? If we can't draw those conclusions of him being a product of the movies (which the movie never really does) through the movie, then it's like I said earlier, its bad filmmaking on the part of the director.

Apparently Gosling did say that was his belief in an interview, but it's also something I thought from within the text of the movie- there's a clearly Taxi Driver-esque tone about the whole thing, and like Taxi Driver we see someone who is trying to fill himself with the cultural detritus of what he sees around him. Being that he works in the movie industry in LA, it seems fairly clear that what he's filled himself with are movie images- thus, he tries to be Steve McQueen in Bullitt. The fact that this isn't stated outright certainly doesn't seem like a failing on the movie's part, it just means that the viewer has to be somewhat more active- it's true that Driver is something of an enigma, but I don't see where that enigma is either insoluble nor the product of laziness.

And he's not plowing through a sea of Latinos and nor am I saying the film is racist or showing any racist viewpoint through the character. For me, it just comes off as lazy and ignorant of Los Angeles from the point-of-view of the screenwriter and the director and just disappoints me further, especially for a film that seems to revel in Los Angeles by naming real streets, having the protaganist work in the movie industry and its choice of locations.

.... What comes off as lazy? The relatively small number of Latinos? It's a small cast and two major roles (Standard and Benicio) are both Latino- outside of that family, Bryan Cranston, and Driver, I think literally everyone who gets more than a line or two is a gangster or a stripper. The fact that the movie avoided casting Latinos as gangsters and strippers doesn't seem lazy, to me, it seems like a conscious decision, as I outlined above.

There was no conflict with the outside world though. His fetishistic behavior is there to create the "calm and cool" archetype; a man who has his plans together. And in the end, its this type of behavior that makes him the only one still alive by the end of the film.

There is a conflict with the outside world, at the moment I just said in that place where you quoted me. He looks like a jerk, and it breaks the aura of coolness about him. The fact that he slides back into that headspace later doesn't change that.

The Elegant Dandy Fop wrote:Again, it seemed like the poor guy was just used as a typical plot-device for bad crime films. That guy who has to do that one last job before they leave him alone and he can be safe, but of course it never works out. And does he accept the job grudgingly? He seems fine with having someone on his side helping him, no? He never comes of as keeping clean and honest. He's no martyr trying to practice honorable pacifism to stay clean. He lets them push him around to eventually do the job. There's no sense of self-defensive or protection for his family if the man can't even protect himself, which makes me feel the depiction of him is of a weak man.

Honestly, I'm wondering if you were watching a different movie- it seemed clear that Drive was going out if its way to make a character who might otherwise seem like an obstacle to the Final Embrace moment a likable and tragic figure. He's not weak, he wants to stay the hell out of the world of the gangsters, because unlike Driver he's not stupid enough to believe that you can get through that world without dirtying yourself. He accepts Driver's help because he's in a position with no allies and nowhere else to turn- and the depiction of his character's plight seemed like a clever and well wrought allusion to some of the problems with both the way prisons are run and the way ex-cons are treated in our society. It's one of the several places where you see the real world, the world Driver can't really understand, peeking in from around his self-limiting worldview

knives wrote:

Spoiler

He's dead by the end of the film. Mulligan is the one who lives.

Spoiler

Isn't the last shot of him driving?

And tarpilot, the point is not about visual motifs. I don't want the Driver to spout out expository dialogue underlining each feeling and problem, but someone looking into a mirror doesn't explain anything to me. Is he hurt? Does he feel his life is a lie? Does he think he's ugly? It just builds more mystery for a character that goes rather unexplained throughout the movie. It seems, like I said earlier, the only parts he shows any signs of who this person may be is when he finally loses it and goes on his rampage toward the end. Like I said, his shockingly psychopathic methods of killing people show more about him that a shot in a mirror. Using a Taxi Driver as an example, Travis talking in the mirror to an imaginary person and flaunting his pistols tells me about the psychological state of Travis and his feeling of being better than the scum of New York, and as careful viewer, you can draw even more allusions from it by previous actions Travis did. Simply looking in the mirror after a careful heist and helping Carey Mulligan with her car doesn't reveal to me anything. Either that, or I'm blind.

matrixschmatrix wrote:Apparently Gosling did say that was his belief in an interview, but it's also something I thought from within the text of the movie- there's a clearly Taxi Driver-esque tone about the whole thing, and like Taxi Driver we see someone who is trying to fill himself with the cultural detritus of what he sees around him. Being that he works in the movie industry in LA, it seems fairly clear that what he's filled himself with are movie images- thus, he tries to be Steve McQueen in Bullitt. The fact that this isn't stated outright certainly doesn't seem like a failing on the movie's part, it just means that the viewer has to be somewhat more active- it's true that Driver is something of an enigma, but I don't see where that enigma is either insoluble nor the product of laziness.

And I will disagree again. Like I said, the job in the movie industry didn't lead me to believe that he's obsessed with movie images and more is revealed about his heist work than this. The heist work seems to tell me he likes driving and outmaneuvering the criminals chasing him or the cops after him. Maybe its just where we are going to half to disagree, but even viewing the film and being involved as an active viewer thinking and observing, there is still nothing that tells me he's drenched in movie images and still think the heist work shows off more.

matrixschmatrix wrote:.... What comes off as lazy? The relatively small number of Latinos? It's a small cast and two major roles (Standard and Benicio) are both Latino- outside of that family, Bryan Cranston, and Driver, I think literally everyone who gets more than a line or two is a gangster or a stripper. The fact that the movie avoided casting Latinos as gangsters and strippers doesn't seem lazy, to me, it seems like a conscious decision, as I outlined above.

Like I said, the lack of care and attention of having Los Angeles as a backdrop and draw attention to it without revealing anything about the city or the people seems lazy to me.

matrixschmatrix wrote:Honestly, I'm wondering if you were watching a different movie- it seemed clear that Drive was going out if its way to make a character who might otherwise seem like an obstacle to the Final Embrace moment a likable and tragic figure. He's not weak, he wants to stay the hell out of the world of the gangsters, because unlike Driver he's not stupid enough to believe that you can get through that world without dirtying yourself. He accepts Driver's help because he's in a position with no allies and nowhere else to turn- and the depiction of his character's plight seemed like a clever and well wrought allusion to some of the problems with both the way prisons are run and the way ex-cons are treated in our society. It's one of the several places where you see the real world, the world Driver can't really understand, peeking in from around his self-limiting worldview

I guess it's just a matter of two different viewpoints again. And even being an ex-con was making me feel like his depiction was for a sloppy criminal and a weak man and that in the scenes with him around Driver, there was always something distrustful about him. Driver doesn't dirty himself until Palm Springs heist and there he's presented as someone who won't get pushed around and as a heroic figure who can stand up to mobsters who act like bullies. It doesn't show vilify his violent actions, but revel in the excitement of them by showing it in slow-motion and playing songs like "A Real Hero".

It was a couple days before Halloween when I saw the film, so when it comes out on Blu-Ray, I'll see it again and give it a re-evaluation with your thoughts and opinions in mind. There are two things though I really liked about the movie, and it's the great opening and the song "Nightcall" over the credits.

I thought it was fairly clear that the songs about what a great guy Driver is were basically playing in his head, while the shocking, horrific violence is meant specifically to push you away from identifying with the character and accepting his viewpoint uncritically. Again, I am thinking of how much in common the movie has with something like Taxi Driver.

The Elegant Dandy Fop wrote:

knives wrote:

Spoiler

He's dead by the end of the film. Mulligan is the one who lives.

Spoiler

Isn't the last shot of him driving?

Spoiler

As he's bleeding to death. Even when in a life threatening situation he's telling his story his way rather than what's sensible.

The Elegant Dandy Fop wrote:And I will disagree again. Like I said, the job in the movie industry didn't lead me to believe that he's obsessed with movie images and more is revealed about his heist work than this. The heist work seems to tell me he likes driving and outmaneuvering the criminals chasing him or the cops after him. Maybe its just where we are going to half to disagree, but even viewing the film and being involved as an active viewer thinking and observing, there is still nothing that tells me he's drenched in movie images and still think the heist work shows off more.

Does it have to be movies though. Couldn't it be fiction on the whole where he's a Don Quixote running at windmills? I think his psychosis relates closer to fairy tales than movies, it's just that the industry is the easiest way to reenact those fantasies every day.

The Elegant Dandy Fop wrote:

matrixschmatrix wrote:.... What comes off as lazy? The relatively small number of Latinos? It's a small cast and two major roles (Standard and Benicio) are both Latino- outside of that family, Bryan Cranston, and Driver, I think literally everyone who gets more than a line or two is a gangster or a stripper. The fact that the movie avoided casting Latinos as gangsters and strippers doesn't seem lazy, to me, it seems like a conscious decision, as I outlined above.

Like I said, the lack of care and attention of having Los Angeles as a backdrop and draw attention to it without revealing anything about the city or the people seems lazy to me.

I don't see how those things are needed. People use and bring attention to New York for example using only the public ethos or pathos without saying anything about it. That's just not part of this story. It's not a film about LA, but instead one about someone who uses and believes in the fiction of it. The lies are more important here.

The Elegant Dandy Fop wrote:And tarpilot, the point is not about visual motifs. I don't want the Driver to spout out expository dialogue underlining each feeling and problem, but someone looking into a mirror doesn't explain anything to me. Is he hurt? Does he feel his life is a lie? Does he think he's ugly? It just builds more mystery for a character that goes rather unexplained throughout the movie.

Huh? My point was about the connections Refn draws between The Driver's actions and his occupation. The images I referenced make up, to me, a rather clear progression of the film's sense of shifting identities/roles (I actually thought it was too on-the-nose): the first shot, of Driver and the Star positioned identically on opposite sides of the makeup mirror, literalizes his 'role' as a shadow/reflection of the film-in-film's violent hero; the shot of the mask obscured in the reflection of the sunglasses as Driver prepares to put it on and the subsequent image of him in the mask at the parlour window as he takes in his prey completes the transition from one side of 'hero' divide to the other.

The Elegant Dandy Fop wrote:Maybe its just where we are going to half to disagree, but even viewing the film and being involved as an active viewer thinking and observing, there is still nothing that tells me he's drenched in movie images and still think the heist work shows off more.

There is nothing that tells you he's drenched in movie images? Really? Not the fact that he drives for movies? Not the fact that he kills people while wearing his movie stunt mask? Not the fact that his chief enemy is an ex-film producer?

I think one of Refn's major interests in his last three movies (this, Bronson, and Valhalla Rising) is looking at people who are deeply, reflexively violent, and and how different social milieux react to that violence differently- in Valhalla Rising it's sort of every day life, in Bronson it's something the state is totally baffled by, and in Drive it's something that so doesn't fit that even amongst the generally violent world of the gangs, someone with a real love of it- like Driver- totally fails to integrate. The fact that he believes himself heroic isn't necessarily relevant.

The Elegant Dandy Fop wrote: People like James Mills are wasting time deciphering a character who's basically a non-entity. Thief, a film it seems to take so much from, features a protagonist who's unashamedly an insecure bastard who flaunts his expensive clothes, refuses to abandon his lifestyle and essentially destroys everyone and dump his family for some sort of distorted idea of independence. It's a character with flaws, personality, goals: a real person, not a breathing cardboard cutout.

I wouldn't even go so far as to saying that I liked Drive as a film entirely, but I think completely dismissing the ambitious depth of its protagonist is kind of myopic. The theme of the scorpion's nature is obviously not a "non entity", and his ability to recognize this and then sacrifice his relationship to protect her future is pretty genius in a lot of ways.

In fact, I think had Refn done this script justice (particularly in adding texture and vulnerability to the protagonist simply with different stage/acting direction (in which case I agree with you on this matter, I guess)), it could have been an absolute masterpiece.