28 September 2011

Cinematic Smackdown: Drive

Drive - 3.5/5
(dir. Nicolas Winding Refn)

What a wonderful enigma of a movie we have here. The story and storytelling are so straightforward and simplistic, so sleek and muscled (after the high-performance machines in the film, no doubt), and yet the characters are full of contradictions, hidden intentions and motives, emotions which often lie just beneath the surface, sometimes peeking through, though more often than not simply remain wrapped in a furtive glance or telling smile; a film which teeters on the edge of zen-like meditation and focus, only to be shattered by shocking, often excessive violence; a film which takes place in the modern world but harkens back to the tight, succinct action of Michael Mann or William Friedkin. Drive is fast, terse, soft, loud, plaintive, and liberating all at once. It is a film which often achieves greatness, but unfortunately cannot sustain it; but then, it is such a welcome respite that you almost forgive it for this, too.

Drive features quite a few great actors, young and old, yet it plays almost like a one-man show. Ryan Gosling simply commands the film and demands to be watched; everyone else is just passing through. As the nameless Driver, he (like the film) seems to simply exist. We are never given a backstory - even his mentor, the father figure (played by the great Bryan Cranston), says he simply appeared one day, "out of the blue," looking for work. A horrific past is hinted at - horribly violent demons sometimes break through his placid exterior, dispatching enemies with startling efficiency, as though he's done this before - though never explained. He grows attached to a vulnerable neighbor, becoming a surrogate father to her child, but his intentions seem more practical and protective than romantic: it's as though she can take him if she wants, but he'd rather just provide for and protect them. This is the film's emotional linchpin - informing the action, as well as his motivation - and it is beautifully underwritten.

What makes Drive so good is that it refuses to indulge in what so often makes films of this sort so bad. Action movies these days, almost without exception, are an exercise in technology: an unnecessarily convoluted plot wrapped in loud, "gee-whiz!" effects, all set to a trite, pounding score. The film simply turns every cliche on its head. Others are loud, aggressive, convoluted, expository; Drive is quiet, furtive, understated. It's banal to cite Michael Bay, but also fitting. Michael Bay could never make anything like this. He wishes he could, but he doesn't have the patience or the restraint. Despite a number of scenes of shocking violence, which occur almost exclusively in the second half of the film, Drive really only has two extended action sequences, one of which opens the film. For the most part, this is a peaceful, quiet, meditative exercise, substituting 80s-inspired girl pop and telling glances for exposition and dialogue.

While this platitudinal subversion is the film's greatest strength, it is simultaneously the film's greatest weakness. The plot, though minimally treated (even cursory, one could say), feels predetermined. Things happen a certain way not because of free-flowing choices that have been made, but because they have to; Drive is more Sophocles than Shakespeare. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the third act, where murder and mayhem become almost pedestrian. It is clear from the characters, the plot devices, and the overall tone of the picture that things will not end nicely, but after a certain point the violence becomes rote and the motivation moot.

But do not take this as disdain on my part. Oh, no no no, quite the contrary. I admire the film and what Refn and Gosling have accomplished here immensely. By pulling back the reins and focusing on mood, tone, and character (rather than the "sound and fury" so common in subpar films of a similar ilk), Refn has managed to be stylish without being stylized, fast-paced but comprehensible, and genuinely tense and exciting without being heavy-handed or overbearing. Even its faults remind us what an accomplished film this is. Drive may not be perfect, but it's well worth watching and will retain its value over repeat viewings.

2 comments:

  1. More Sophocles than Shakespeare? Sounds like how I reviewed Road to Perdition. You ripping me off, again? Just kidding. This film sounds more interesting the Road to Perdition. I might have to try and check it out.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I've heard that phrase before - was it from you? Wouldn't surprise me. You and Roger Ebert are the sources I rip off the most - though I usually at least acknowledge it!

    You should definitely watch Drive. A really special achievement in a lot of ways, just doesn't quite reach the likes of Terminator 2 or other greats.

    ReplyDelete