Here is a slightly modified version of some thoughts about Drive that I wrote for somebody. Not much of a review, just couple of thoughts and not exactly strong or precise ones at that. Skims the surface, some areas in the wrong ways. Here it is anyway:
I’m very fond of Danish filmmaking within the last twenty years. Although Refn’s audience has been significantly expanded as opposed to some of his cultural peers, he continues to indulge in my theory of what I call an “honest” cinema similar to John Ruskin’s idea of “truth” in architecture. Without going into too much detail I would describe it as such: unless the filmmaker has a very specific reason not to show “it,” then it must be shown.
Drive fits into this category.
It has blunt depictions of violence and is not afraid of withdrawing anything from the audience. In this particular instance it satiates their bloodlust and puts us on even playing fields with the Driver’s emotions without sacrificing the credibility of the film and it’s characters.
Not to mention that for probably the first time ever, East European arthouse has collided with Hollywood archetypes and highly stylized grindhouse-like violence into a thrilling ride. It is a suspenseful film that builds layer after layer, tests the limit of it’s audience and explodes - which is not unique to this film of course. It is patient.
One reason more “mainstream” reviews hate the film is because of it’s patience. Many people don’t realize that everything does not have to be explicitly stated. Awkward situations exist in real life and sometimes all you have to do is plop the camera in one place and guide your actors. It is a film of little words and is so effective with delivering information. It is something that they have not seen before and they shun it because it makes them uncomfortable.
It introduces a solid foundation for this “explosion” and brings back the once dominant archetypes in film - Yojimbo, Man with No Name, Dirty Harry, etc. into a modern cultural context. Unlike his predecessors, The Driver is relatable. But similar to them, I believe he is a representation of the contemporary idea of what a “man” is and aspires to be with the values he holds and why he chooses to do what he does, as well as the idea that “things” are not obtainable and value of simple things. Probably not intentionally, the film explores the idea of memory context with it’s protagonist. Like the idea that originally attracted Refn to the screenplay, “it is a about a man who drives around Los Angeles listening to pop music.”
The film bounced back and forth with me. It gave me meaning and I gave some to it.
