I seriously should be going to bed instead of writing this post, but it's getting to the point past which things I wanted to say will permanently leave my brain if I don't get this show on the road.
So: "Drive" (2011).
 |
| You confuse me. |
That was possibly accurate.
Encouraged by a Jezebel article in which Ryan Gosling had claimed that his latest project was supposed to be "Pretty in Pink with a head smashing", we decided to see "Drive" instead. I mean, who wouldn't want to see "Pretty in Pink" (1986) with a light dusting of violence?? Being an epic fan of "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" (1986) and "The Breakfast Club" (1985)--because if you don't like those movies, seriously, you're dead inside--it seemed like a great bet.
Fast forward 100 minutes, and I suddenly had no idea what had happened to me. I staggered out of the theater with my friends, feeling a bit shell-shocked and bewildered.
It is. So. Violent!
 |
| Had I seen this movie poster, I might have had a more accurate impression of the movie going in. The hammer is a bad sign. |
In spite of being a lover of nonviolence, I recognize that violence has its place in film. I was finally fully convinced of this while listening to an interview with David Cronenberg and Viggo Mortensen about their 2007 release "Eastern Promises". The movie is extremely violent, and in fact, Cronenberg went to extensive lengths to make the violence feel real in order to facilitate the audience's empathy for his characters. In service of this aim, Cronenberg set up the camera during the violent scenes in the movie such that you couldn't look away from the violence. As a result, the violence hurts, creating a visceral reaction in the viewer, because it should--because violence is ugly and horrifying.
That didn't happen in "Drive". There were definitely some charmingly realistic acoustic tricks thrown in to make sure you knew someone's face just got stomped in, but the violence was so random, senseless, and so extreme as to not seem plausible in the real world. It's desensitizing, achieving exactly the opposite effect of the violence in "Eastern Promises". That, I would argue, is pretty troubling.
But nevertheless, so many people like this movie! Two of the three commentators on a podcast I enjoy and trust insisted that the movie was worth seeing. It has a 93% rating on RottenTomatoes, for Christsakes!
Okay so it's really violent. But a good plot can make that okay, right?
See.... I don't know that the plot is helping this movie, either. Because, well... there isn't one, really. I mean there are events that happen, and there are characters that interact in seemingly significant ways, but it all feels flimsy and again, implausible.
I'll explain: The basic premise is that Ryan Gosling's character, who is pointedly left without a name, is like the best driver EVER. We know next to nothing about him, and he's incredibly emotionally flat so he doesn't have much of a personality per se, but Bryan Cranston's character says that seriously guys he's the BEST DRIVER. Except we barely see him do much of it. Minor oversight.
I mean it's not like the word "drive" features prominently in the movie's title or anything.
 |
| Don't be fooled: Fancy driving gloves do not = fancy driver. |
This also feels weirdly unbelievable. I mean, I don't mean to be a jerk, but...
 |
| ...her? |
I'm sure she's a perfectly nice woman and a talented actor.
ANYWAY, so Gosling is all Borderline-I-get-super-into-people-way-too-easily-God-knows-why. So when (spoiler alert) Mulligan's husband gets gunned down in a botched pawn shop robbery and some scary dudes threaten her son, Gosling decides to save the day. Cue the insane violence!!
Really, the major problem I have with this movie is the lack of backstory. Outside the theater, my classmates and I tried desperately to diagnose Gosling's character with a mental illness of some kind. Clearly, we reasoned, there was something really wrong with that guy, because there's no way a normal human being would behave the way he did. But there isn't even a clear diagnostic category to shove him into. I simply haven't been able to figure out a way that his character makes sense to me, given the very scant information I have about him. And that annoys me. I know I've already copped to being perhaps overly into characters and not that swayed by plot, but that's just how I am.
In the interest of fairness, there were definitely some great things about this movie. The soundtrack is really cool, and Bryan Cranston is spectacular. That man knows how to transform himself for a role. He's remarkable. And I really want to like Ryan Gosling! I'm under the impression he's immensely skilled, and let's face it, he's pretty. Every actor, even really accomplished ones, have projects that are less successful. Maybe this is just one of them.
What I think my confusion over "Drive" comes down to is misinformed expectations. This film got amazing critical reviews and was compared to some movies I really enjoy. And it included an actress I'm dying to see more of, given that I'm almost out of Mad Men episodes: Christina Hendricks. In actuality, the movie's plot and character felt flat and unbelievable. I would stridently argue that it takes more than hot pink scrawly credits text and synth-y music to make a movie seem like it deserves to stand among the ranks of Ferris Bueller and "The Breakfast Club". And the final insult?
 |
| I can haz mor Joan? |
So sorry, critics, but I'm just not convinced. I'm giving "Drive" a 1.
Bedtime!
<3
We just finished watching Drive, and totally agreed. But to add one more criticism...I think the director gave each actor about 10 lines total. Maybe it was only based on a short story.
ReplyDelete