Finally watched this tonight, and have now got to read this thread, but I’ll go ahead and pipe in that this is a great maleodrama.
I thought the ending kind of reminded me of Two-Lane Black Top.
@Wolves
it is interesting how most of the characters wanted more. they were not satisfied with contentment.
Well, to be fair, didn’t Nino mistakenly take money from the East Coast mob? So if he didn’t get the money back, he and Bernie would be in big trouble.
@Daniel
You’ve really never heard of Chromeo and Calvin Harris?
No, but that’s not too surprising given me screen name and my age (40s). :) But I’ve yet to hear this on the radio (when my wife or nieces and nephews are around).
@Taka
There is no explanation for the Driver’s loss of control/extreme violence in this situation…
Two things. First, he’s willing to be a getaway driver for criminals, so the fact that he would be violent is not too surprising. Second, Gosling has or can have the aura of a psychopath. De Niro is (or was) like this, too. You see him on screen playing a character with a shady background, and you’re anticipating when he’s going to explode.
As for how he feels about this, I don’t think he feels much, which makes him a psychotic (or is it sociopathic?). He’s kind of a simple, tough guy. That’s my reading on him, anyway.
At the end, my sense is that he doesn’t feel remorse for his violent behavior, but I did sense a feeling of disappointment because he’s leaving Irene. (I’m not too sure about this last part.)
I think The Driver uses a facade of manly cliches to hide or ignore his more conflicted, violent interior. I also think the character’s more comfortable doing these “manly” things, namely working on cars and driving. We see him being pretty awkward socially, coupled with his violent urges and the scene in which a man from a prior, botched driving job approaches him, we get the impression (or at least I did) that this guy can’t really fit in with others or lead a normal life. So he’d rather do what he’s good at and what he’s comfortable with; driving. Assuming that he dies at the end, which I think he does, he dies doing something he loves, driving, knowing that Irene’s safe.
What you’re describing is congruent with the type of manliness the film depicts, imo.
Also, the Driver’s reaction to the guy at the diner wasn’t a sign of social awkwardness. He got pissed off at the guy about openly talking about a crime they were both involved with—something that would put him at risk. The rising violence in his voice stems from that, and it makes sense to me.
Re: comic books
I’m especially thinking of the head-and-shoulder shots with the character to either the extreme left or right of the screen. There are other shots, but these are some of the specific shots I remember. Am I the only one who feels this way?
I’m wondering – do you guys think there’s much depth or substance here? Do you think it’s attempting to have any?
I don’t think the film is especially deep, but the simplicity of the characters and the spareness and stylishness of the filmmaking (and I’m not sure what else) give a kind of mythic feeling to the film. It makes it feel more thematic than narrative-based.
@Jazz
I believe Nino new it was east coast mob money but Bernie didn’t. I think Nino mentions that no one would have been the wiser if the money got ripped off as planned.
Interview with Refn and Elvis Mitchell here.
Refn talks about fairy tales and his belief that he’s a fetish filmmaker.
“do you guys think there’s much depth or substance here?”
I think Refn’s movies I’ve seen consistently suffer from shallowness, though I think PUSHER is the least glaring example, and I think the choice and deployment of music in DRIVE went a long way in loading up the surface of a movie that certainly wears its emotionality on its sleeve. BRONSON seemed almost exclusively surface to me, leaving me impressed by technique on almost all fronts yet still super-cold.
@Ben Simington – Even though I don’t agree with your opinion, I can see why you have that reaction. I think there are plenty of filmmakers who would give us the same reaction. For me, first one I can think of is Park Chan-wook.
@Jazz
“Two things. First, he’s willing to be a getaway driver for criminals, so the fact that he would be violent is not too surprising. Second, Gosling has or can have the aura of a psychopath. De Niro is (or was) like this, too. You see him on screen playing a character with a shady background, and you’re anticipating when he’s going to explode.”
Yeah, but I think the elevator scene was intended to be surprising, both to the audience and to the characters (including The Driver himself). Hence his apparent loss of control/excessive violence. I wasn’t surprised that he was violent, since like you say – he conveys a sense of danger/anger beneath the surface and he doesn’t take bullshit from anyone, however I saw the elevator scene as a reveal – at that moment we realize that he’s actually kind of crazy, not just sociopathic as we’re led to believe prior to that. And my complaint is that nobody in the film seems to respond to this or think about it and the film itself doesn’t explore it any further.
“As for how he feels about this, I don’t think he feels much, which makes him a psychotic (or is it sociopathic?). He’s kind of a simple, tough guy. That’s my reading on him, anyway.”
Hmm. I guess if he is a simple, tough guy psychopath then there’s no reason to explore that further. But to me, he seemed aware that what he did was psychotic; I’m basing this simply off the look he gives Irene after the incident. Maybe I’m wrong, but I got the feeling he knew he was violent and that loss of control was an example of why he couldn’t lead a normal life/why he’d never be able to have a real relationship with Irene. That and the circumstances of course.
“At the end, my sense is that he doesn’t feel remorse for his violent behavior, but I did sense a feeling of disappointment because he’s leaving Irene. (I’m not too sure about this last part.)”
“Also, the Driver’s reaction to the guy at the diner wasn’t a sign of social awkwardness. He got pissed off at the guy about openly talking about a crime they were both involved with—something that would put him at risk. The rising violence in his voice stems from that, and it makes sense to me.”
No, no, no I totally got that – I didn’t mean that THAT was a sign of social awkwardness. I’m saying that in general he’s socially awkward (ie the blossoming romance scenes with him and Irene, etc.) and the diner scene was a different example I listed as to why he can’t live a normal life – he’s got a criminal history that’ll cause repercussions down the line.
“I don’t think the film is especially deep, but the simplicity of the characters and the spareness and stylishness of the filmmaking (and I’m not sure what else) give a kind of mythic feeling to the film. It makes it feel more thematic than narrative-based.”
I can see that. I’m just trying to figure out what it’s trying to say then, thematically. I’m wondering if it’s saying much.
Sidenote – how did you feel about the Driver character, Jazz? (or anyone else). Sympathetic? Unsympathetic? Likable? Unlikable?
The ending kind of bothered me, or rather the recurring use of that song (which I actually really like), just because it creates a “happy-ending”/he’s a hero type of mood, whereas I don’t think that’s necessarily the case. How did you read the ending, emotionally?
Ending: 2nd chances are rare, and he might have a shot at one, even if he has to throw everything in his life away. One of the reasons I don’t see this so much as a noir and more as a crime flick…too optimistic a universe with very real potential for redemption. Then again, I read it this way even though that didn’t really resonate genuinely with me, so perhaps my reading itself rings false.
@Ben
So you think he survives at the end of the film?
Did wonder upon that, and I presume he survived, against the odds.
Yup. Sequel bait.
lol wut? he goes to another town and saves another girl? psycho hero style?
Well, if Refn makes a ROAD WARRIOR to this MAD MAX, I’d probably watch. But any sequel having anything to do with any other characters already introduced in the first film…fuggetaboutit!
The film was actually initially developed as a potential big-budget action franchise (Hugh Jackman and I think Neil Marshall were going to do it at one point, I believe).
lol yeah i’m with ben. i have a weird fascination with refn and what he’ll do next it seems
Speaking of Mad Max and Road Warrior, I think Refn would an ideal director for either a remake (of Raod Warrior) or a fourth installment.
@Taka
But to me, he seemed aware that what he did was psychotic; I’m basing this simply off the look he gives Irene after the incident.
I don’t recall seeing a look that would give me that impression. (But I can’t recall any reaction at this point.)
Maybe I’m wrong, but I got the feeling he knew he was violent and that loss of control was an example of why he couldn’t lead a normal life/why he’d never be able to have a real relationship with Irene.
Doesn’t he hint that they could take the money and run away (after Irene slaps him when he presents her with the money)? If so, at that point, I think he believes there’s still a chance with her.
I’m just trying to figure out what it’s trying to say then, thematically. I’m wondering if it’s saying much.
Something Matt wrote in the “Spaghetti Western” thread is appropriate here, I think. He said that Spaghetti Westerns were more about expression, than plot, and, in that way, they were more operatic. I feel the same way about this film. It’s a more operatic (and modern) version of Shane. The film is about expression—a stylized one—about (drum roll)—manliness. That’s my reading, anyway.
As a point of reference, there’s a perceptive REVIEW by Anthony Lane in this week’s issue of The New Yorker. Lane, although English, is one of America’s best film reviewers. His book Nobody’s Perfect collects many of his New Yorker reviews and profiles. He is at times devastatingly funny.
nice, thx for that ^^
Ooh. That was quite the review!
I’ve seen The Man From Laramie and remember that scene very well. For sure, one does not need to show so much goddamn gore, it removes us from feeling, not the other way around.
By the by, all the discussion about decades reminds me of Dennis Hopper’s great line in Flashback (1990):
“Once we get out of the eighties, the nineties are going to make the sixties look like the fifties.” Don’t know as that ever really happened, but it’s a funny line.
Odi said, For sure, one does not need to show so much goddamn gore, it removes us from feeling, not the other way around.
I know you haven’t seen the film, Odi, but I think, in this case, showing the graphic violence is actually meaningful—and in some odd way, more responsible. Action movies and stories (I’m thinking of comic books) have these heroes that are violent or behave violently. It’s part of what they do and who they are to some extent, but almost all of them whitewash this aspect of the character. (The comic book Watchmen does not and tries to highlight this aspect, which is one of the reasons its so good, imo.) This allows the audience to applaud and embrace the hero without ambivalence or hesitation. The graphic violence in Drive gives—or should give—viewers pause. (And I’m responding to Taka’s last question, which I forgot.) The way I felt about the Driver at the end was similar to how I felt about Shane or any hero that saves the day. HOWEVER, I also feel some ambivalence, too. In many ways, he’s sort of like what the Dark Knight angle on Batman is supposed to be—namely, bringing the darker aspects of the character out in the open. That’s how I see the Driver—a kind of Dark Rider.
Ah well, I have a hard time with graphic violence, Jazz. I really do.
he brings up something i wondered about too. why would the driver keep on wearing that jacket after it’s dirty and smeared with blood? it doesn’t make sense. except that refn just likes the jacket. lol
@Odi
You probably shouldn’t see the film (although it’s basically a few scenes), but I just wanted to comment on whether the graphic violence served a meaningful purpose or not.
“it doesn’t make sense. except that refn just likes the jacket.”
More importantly, I think Refn likes that jacket being covered in blood. Those human bean juice stains stand out in stark ironic juxtaposition to such a particularly slick piece of fashion. I think graphic extremity is also designed to visualize just how much of an almost physical force is doomed to stand between the driver and any long-term peaceful connections to other people.
Case in point, the movie’s apotheosis in the elevator scene. SPOILER: He gets only one moment to share in a kiss with the woman of his dreams, and then he bashes the head in of a hitman about to kill him…they are in such temporal and spatial proximity in that elevator as to be the same action, extensions of each other, or are at least the flipsides of one another, unavoidably linked.
“lol yeah i’m with ben. i have a weird fascination with refn and what he’ll do next it seems”
Oh, and for the record, James Sallis, author of the novel the film is based on:
“I’m a hundred-plus pages into a novel about Driver seven years further along, when the mob shows up, apparently to kill him.”
DRIVE 2: DRIVE ANOTHER DAY!
edit: seriously, if Refn loads the soundtrack as heavily as he did this time around, I’m in. I’m currently projecting that I could listen to “Real Hero” and “Desire” on a back to back loop for…ever?
DRIVE HARDER!
Matt Parks
“As far as I’m concerned, if Can’t Fight This Feeling or Keep on Loving You doesn’t bring a tear to your eye, there’s something wrong with you.”
It’s true . . . it’s all true!