DRIVE Discussion - Page 6

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bailey 

I see what you're saying, and I like the way you put it.  The way I initially read it was more that he was literally defined by his driving.  He had no past.  He had no name.  He had no personality.  He drove for the movies, as a getaway driver, he was a budding race car driver, and a mechanic.  And that's really all he ever was until he met Irene.  He was, in all ways, a device.

I think this is true, and I think Irene is just a venue through which he can play out fantasies of the noble protector archetype. It's a role he wants to play -- there's little authentic about it. Something about him driving off at the end even feels bizarrely asexual, like he was never in it for the intimacy anyway; I would argue he actually remains a device throughout the entire movie, and Irene does little or nothing to actually change this.

I also think the autism similarities are a byproduct of Refn's other intentions in the Driver characterization. It's a fun bit of speculation but just ends up being distracting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMulder 

 

I think this is true, and I think Irene is just a venue through which he can play out fantasies of the noble protector archetype.

He is successful in playing out the archetype though. How is it a fantasy? He saves Benicio and Irene from Nino's goons. I realize Refn is playing with genre convention and audience perception with all this, but some of these arguments seem to gloss over the situation that gets the Driver playing that role, which is something he was quite clearly reluctant to get involved in. 

It also occurs to me that Standard is the only character in the movie to make a legitimate, moral choice - he is trying to go straight. Everyone else exists in this gloomy amoral area where they are reacting to things in a not entirely genuine fashion (perhaps this is a commentary on personal relationships in L.A. in general).

I think this interpretation is given a bit of weight by the character being named Standard in a movie titled Drive. Also, his arc, while extremely short, seems genuine. Everyone is just being propelled forward by events.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMulder 

 

Yeah, but everything has a Wikipedia page (I read that too before posting) -- it doesn't really indicate a broader awareness. Did you hear or read about the fable before you saw Drive or The Crying Game, Rain Dog?

 

Here's a theory: we know the Driver's obsessed with movies, right? Perhaps he is aware of the fable because of The Crying Game. Quoting from it adds another level of irony and artifice to his identity -- not only is he expressing his predicament in terms of a fable, but he chooses a fable that's been filtered through the lens of the movies, which are one of his primary points of access to emotional release and a major prism through which he sees things. Ironically, Crying Game is a highly political film which questions gender roles, was an Academy Award nominee, etc. -- it's exactly the opposite of the badass action flick we would expect the Driver to name-drop or quote from. It's even a little funny to think of him sitting through it.

 

Not sure what that irony could be doing in the movie, really, beyond just showing how artificial and contrived Driver's whole persona is. But the fact that he would like The Crying Game certainly adds a new dimension to his character, one that makes him a bit of a hypocrite in how it indicates a temperament he would outwardly seem to reject.

Nah, it's pretty famous/common. Maybe not Tortoise & Hare level, but definitely out there. You just happen to have not heard of it outside these two movies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zhukov 

I see absolutely no reason to think the guy is autistic, he's just a little weird. Like a chess prodigy, except with cars ... and violence.

I thought Nino's end on the beach was beautiful, haven't seen anyone really mention that. And for all the talk about how the Driver is a sociopath and crazy and acting out a fantasized mythological existence or whatever, people seem to be overlooking the point that he did, in fact, save the shit out of Irene and Benicio because Standard sure as fuck wasn't going to be able to repay Nino's goons. Drive refers to the single-minded exertion of will that the Driver possesses. When he sees Benicio playing with the bullet, he becomes driven in doing whats necessary to protect him and Irene, even if he isn't able to relate to them in a natural, socially-adept way. The movie increasingly becomes less about driving cars and more about the forward driving impulse Gosling endures to protect his adoptive family - Irene, Benicio, and then Shannon once he gets involved. It gets all supremely fucked up, but that's not the Drivers fault, its just that Shannon has shitty luck (the callback there being the horseshoe tattoo on his neck that you only see when Gosling slightly moves Walt's head when he finds him in the garage).

Well, autism is a spectrum, no?  He's clearly high-functioning and even if it is the case, I don't think it makes this a movie about autism by any stretch.  It just lends a bit of psychological reality to balance out the meta-ish aspects if you so require. 

And you're right, we were sort of losing track of the fact that even though Driver is trying to force himself into the role of the hero, he is successful in doing so.  That's part of what makes the film great.  We would classify most films with these sorts of aspects as deconstructions, but Refn manages to pull back and examine them from just enough distance to draw our attention to them without actually taking apart the formula.  If film were architecture Drive would be the Leaning Tower of Pisa; too askew to actually live in, but not quite enough for the structure itself to collapse.  It draws your attention to the shaky foundations but also highlights the inherent durability of the structure despite all that.

Well Zhukov, I don't know if the fact Driver is successful in carrying out the fantasy in reality makes it any more genuine or authentic than when it was just a fantasy. And considering that the movie itself is probably representative of his fantasy, it is arguable that there is no actual "reality" for him outside the fantasy in the first place. I'm not sure if he ever actually feels anything, or makes any emotional connections, outside the satisfaction he gets from fulfilling the archetype.

Does he ever really love Irene, for example? Maybe. But does he only love her because the role requires him to, and loving her is part of fulfilling it? In my opinion, probably. I think that's where the current of naivety that underlies his character comes from -- he actually believes this stuff, and because the movie itself is complicit in his fantasy, the audience is compelled to believe it too. So the movie becomes a bit of a comment on how artifice and fiction can trick us so thoroughly that we no longer know what's authentic and what isn't.

Good points, both. I sort of suspect there might be something more subversive than just toying with authentic audience reactions, though. Mulder, you write that "the movie becomes a bit of a comment on how artifice and fiction can truck us so thoroughly that we no longer know what's authentic and what isn't." This is a universal theme, of course, but this movie is quite definitely, and specifically, about L.A. (where the question of authenticity is at it's most plastic). And beyond that, the movie makes a sort of inexplicable reference to the Driver being a for-hire stunt car driver for Hollywood. A number of Chewers have commented on how everything in this movie is crafted like clockwork, but I don't see how the Hollywood/Stunt-Car bit fits in on the surface level. That, and the Mask, both seem to explicate these notions of authenticity and artifice as integral to the film's purpose and, ultimately, to the motivations of the Driver himself.

My own personal take (and note, I've only seen the movie once) is that Refn might be projecting himself as the Driver, being a recent transplant into the LA/Hollywood culture. He just wants to make movies, the Driver just wants to drive, and they're being distracted by unwanted relationships and money? Just something I'm throwing out there.

Maybe this is part of the Driver's awkwardness - an inability to speak the language, the lingo of the culture one finds himself in. Gosling says he thinks the Driver is just regurgitating movie cliches he has absorbed. Is Refn commenting on that exact thing, especially with the deliberate 80s touchstones?

Just watched this. What a beautiful, disturbing movie. A couple of thoughts:

1) Drive plays like a combination between a superhero origin story and a monster movie.

2) As such, I think it's saying something about certain versions of manliness, or what is expected of men. Upthread, someone posted Gosling's thoughts that the driver was deeply attached to a certain cinematic ideal. But I think that his addiction is to a fiction much older than cinema. I think it's compelling that his rival for Irene's affection is in a place in his life where he wants to put aside his (probably) macho past, only to be killed in a robbery which was predicated on a fiction, which in itself fulfilled certain fictional tropes (one last job, etc.).

3) But then, I think that the driver wants reality instead of his fictions, and that's his tragedy. The one chance he has to escape his fictions only draws him deeper into them. Of course, his reliance on fiction could be, to paraphrase the scorpion, "in his nature".

4) The last shot has some very strong echoes of Peckinpah's Straw Dogs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by D.S. Randlett 
4) The last shot has some very strong echoes of Peckinpah's Straw Dogs.

We now live in a world where have to preface Straw Dogs with "Peckinpah's" because someone decided to remake it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeanCE 

Quote:

We now live in a world where have to preface Straw Dogs with "Peckinpah's" because someone decided to remake it.

 

We live in a world where people are just stupid enough to think remaking a movie is the perfect way to make money and audiences are stupid to buy into the bulldooky

On the other hand, I would like to see remakes of bad movies or movies with great ideas but poor execution, to see if you can get it right the second time. Unfortunately, our idiot overlords just want to remake successful movies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeanCE 

Quote:

We now live in a world where have to preface Straw Dogs with "Peckinpah's" because someone decided to remake it.

 

Sorry to go off-topic, but I just had to echo this in saying it really pisses me off that I now have to say "Halloween" '78 when I mention how much I love "Halloween".

I totally agree and this is why the only re-make I've ever been interested in is "Fahrenheit 451". Francois Truffaut is clearly a brilliant filmmaker, but I don't know what the fuck happened with that movie. It was completely ridiculous and robbed the story of whatever resonance it could have with stilted acting and frankly tacky production design.

I was really excited when I heard Frank Darabont might re-make the movie. It has an intriguing premise and really powerful ideas. Deserves a much more slick, classy presentation than the sloppy, campy mess Trauffaut cobbled together.

Back on topic...um, I don't have much more to say about this movie that hasn't already been said. I think it may have combined violence and romance better than any movie I've ever seen (most effectively in the elevator scene) and I believe it's the first movie I've ever seen Ron Perlman in that I really liked.

I've liked him for awhile because of "Batman: The Animated Series", but I didn't care for "Hellboy" (excellent production design, but couldn't get into the characters and story), and although I enjoyed it on opening week because of nostalgia for the show and being caught up in the hype, it's obvious to me now that "Star Trek: Nemesis" sucks.

Ron wasn't in "Drive" for very long, but his character was memorable and left a strong impression on me. I want to check out good performances from him in some older movies at some point. Any recommendations? "Chronos", perhaps? Never saw the fourth Alien movie.

City of Lost Children has a good Perlman performance, if you haven't seen it.

Alien Resurrection is dick in general, but Perlman's a definite bright spot. Also, if you have any attachment whatsoever to Firefly, the seeds of what that show would become are in there and Perlman is, ostensibly, playing Jayne.

Wow, looking at Perlman's filmography is a little sad. Does the guy really have that much trouble getting film work? He does almost an absurd amount of video game voice roles, along with a bunch of really below-the-radar indie pictures (but not the good kind). Of course, he could just love games, I guess.

Perlman's the bright spot in any movie you happen to find him in; he's like Robert Forester, an immensely talented character actor who's always scraping in the bottom of the barrel. Though Hellboy seems to have gotten him in slightly higher budgeted barrels. Critics responded well to his performance in Drive, so maybe that'll open a window for him to start being used correctly.

Course, this would all be moot if Universal had grown some balls last year; he was going to be one of the leads in Del Toro's At the Mountains of Madness. That would've been huge.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg Clark 

Perlman's the bright spot in any movie you happen to find him in; he's like Robert Forester, an immensely talented character actor who's always scraping in the bottom of the barrel. Though Hellboy seems to have gotten him in slightly higher budgeted barrels. Critics responded well to his performance in Drive, so maybe that'll open a window for him to start being used correctly.

 

Course, this would all be moot if Universal had grown some balls last year; he was going to be one of the leads in Del Toro's At the Mountains of Madness. That would've been huge.

Sons of Anarchy has also done a lot I'm sure to open more doors for Pearlman.

This is amazing. A visual summary/review of Drive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joseph P. Brenner 

This image so completely sums up my reaction to this film.  It totally feels like a title you'd see on the shelf at the video store that you'd pass by over and over again until you finally rented it and wondered why you waited so long.  Everything about the style of it screams 1980s direct-to-video, and in every good way imaginable.

I did think the beginning, after Driver's first job, felt a little meandering, which I guess was maybe an intentional mirror of Driver's own state at the time.  But once he gets involved with helping Standard, the film takes off, and the "Oh My Love" sequence is downright transcendant, so much so that I don't think the rest of the film, as satisfying as it is, can possibly live up to it.

I know people have talked about the cars in the film representing Driver's mechanical nature, but I think there's also a strong line of cars representing escape, both literal and figurative.  He uses them to get criminals away from their crimes, but they also seem to be a world wherein he's entirely able to be himself, with no intrusions, no distractions, no complications.  He's the master there, with his "five minute" rule and his ability to make them do what he wants.  And in the end, the two forms of escape merge as he drives away from very real danger and from the life he once knew (and that may be over, if you believe he ultimately dies).

Has anyone considered the idea of "Drive" as meaning "purpose" or "motivation" as opposed to the act of operating a car?  That seems to be at play too.

I'm not sure I would have thrown it into the Best Picture conversation (although the cinematography was certainly award-worthy), and I think Brooks' performance resonates more because it's Brooks in the role than for anything he actually does with it, but it's definitely a great piece of entertainment.

I have mixed feelings about this one. I was taken out of the film several times by the THIS IS IMPORTANT pacing and the THIS IS HOMAGE touches. But ultimately, it haunts me. I enjoyed diving into this thread and reading the various examinations of the flick. Refn is truly a master at what he does (BRONSON blew me away). Besides the Leone Western, my tastes tend to turn towards the charismatic fast-talker in these types of films (compare POINT BLANK to PAYBACK), so I'm kept a bit at an arms' length with Gosling's Driver here.

Mann's THIEF is an obvious point of reference, but I also can't help but think of Mann's COLLATERAL as well, which wowed me on my first viewing. DRIVE is sort of the anti-COLLATERAL in the way the main characters are forced into the events and criminal world. Driver, albeit reluctant, seems to embrace his roll (fantasy roll-playing), while Fox's cabbie is targeted and pulled back in by the charismatic Cruise character. Neither can escape, but Driver's involvement is fateful for a different reason. In the immortal words of Troy McClure "It's the part I was born to play, baby!"

I'm also of the mind that the mask is a Cruise/Statham hybrid.

I will be giving DRIVE another look and recommending it. And seeking out some older related cinema.

This has definitely been a case where I've enjoyed reading discussion about a film more than I enjoyed the film. Carry on, ladies and gents.

Johnny Jewel was the original composer for Drive until he was replaced with Cliff Martinez.  Jewel is the man behind Desire and The Chromatics, who had great tracks on the score.  Anyway, Jewel created an entire score for Drive that was never used (Refn wants him to score Logan's Run for him).

He composed a 2.5 hour unused score for an imaginary film, It's on his soundcloud and it's pretty fucking great.  While not the unused the Drive score, one could easily imagine it as such, and you get an idea of what could be in store for Logan's Run.

Any idea why Jewel was replaced?  Was it a scheduling thing?  Doesn't seem to be a bad blood thing, since Refn wants to work with him again.

No idea.

That's one badass find!  Thanks!

It's no secret, I've been in prison for the last year and a half.  I only bring that up because that's where I saw this flick.  They would show us new (video) releases on the weekends.  This was probably my favorite film that I've seen in the last three or four years, maybe since Inglourious Bastards.  I loved it.  Adored it.  I'm sure I'm about to rehash some of what's already been said, but this did the retro 80's type thing better than any Expendables could ever think about.   It didn't just try to trot out the tropes, though, it emulated a very specific sleazy vibe, the kind you'd get from something like Gary Sherman's VICE SQUAD.  Of course crossed with Melville, or more directly, Walter Hill's THE DRIVER.

I remember arguing with several other inmates about the merits of this movie.  Mostly the review was "It was called Drive.  I expected more stunts and car chases."   And when I said I loved it, one of my dudes there said, "Yeah, but you like them slow, queer ass movies."  My point being, I guess, stay out of trouble, kids.

What did you do what did you do what did you do what did you do?

I thought Drive's use of violence towards the later half of the film was really out of place. CGI blood squibs and eye gougings really took me out of the film, especially when Nino and Standard's deaths were so effective. It really messed with the tone of the film and my perceptions of the characters.

I liked it, LA looked gorgeous, but in the end I'd rather watch THIEF or THE DRIVER.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freeman 

What did you do what did you do what did you do what did you do?

How rude!  Have some respect, would you?

BUT SERIOUSLY, WHAT DID YOU DO?

Prescription fraud.  No secret.