I would estimate that close to 80% of the audience who attended the 10:00 p.m. showing of Drive on Friday evening at the iPic either disliked it or were at the very least indifferent and confused as they exited the theater. Based on their reactions, I think they were expecting The Fast and the Furious Part 17, or something. To the dismay of probably many moviegoers this past weekend, Drive is an art-house noir film from director Nicolas Winding Refn that was screened at the Cannes Film Festival this year. I absolutely loved it, and I think it is one of the two best films of 2011 thus far. [Update - Salon posted a discussion on its website this morning about why mainstream audiences hate Drive. Read it here]:
Salon - The "Drive" Backlash
Drive juxtaposes stylish shots and meaningful periods of silence with sudden and extreme violence. The film borrows from a number of different genres to create the tone, style, and story, but the finished product is unrecognizable neo-noir awesomeness. It is simply fantastic. The violence may be gratuitous at times, but I really like the way that the violence is "treated" in the film. Gabe Delahaye of Videogum (humorously) explains this element better than I can [spoilers]:
"This movie, unlike so many movies and TV shows these days, did at least take its violence seriously, which is good. I’ve briefly mentioned this before, but it is crazy how pretty much any character in any movie or TV show made in the past 10 years will just straight up grab a gun without ever having seen one in their lives before and blow some dude’s face off and giggle because it’s Cameron Diaz or something and then there’s a one-liner like, “Are my panties showing?” [Or "Did I mess up my hair?"]. It’s awful. Violence is fine and I have no problem seeing it depicted, but there has to be some sense of the [seriousness] and moral weight of it, I mean, come on. Similar to the moral consideration of the violence, I also appreciate that he [Driver] doesn’t 'get the girl' in the end. Because he shouldn’t. Because he’s a murderer and a fucking dangerous maniac."
Essentially, the violent moments in Drive are serious and dark, and although many of the violent acts occur suddenly and without warning, those who commit the acts of violence are clearly dangerous sociopaths, and the protagonist is no different. We know from the start that Gosling's character is not just a normal guy who will have normal relationships with other normal characters and that he has the potential to commit acts of violence.
The restrained dialogue and cinematography are also brilliant. I am clearly not a film critic, and I will not pretend to be one. I find that I struggle to adequately explain or articulate components of a film that I think is absolutely superb and unique (other recent examples include Beginners, Winter's Bone, Animal Kingdom, Cyrus, and There Will Be Blood). But I know that it has been a few years since I've been this enthusiastic about a movie I saw in theaters.
Of course, I cannot move on without also addressing how similar art-house or indie films have managed to secure wide releases in recent years. Selling the film to a major studio is obviously an important factor when it comes to promotion and the number of theaters in which it will be screened nationwide or worldwide. For example, Drive was released by FilmDistrict, which like many other deceptively "small" distribution companies is just an appendage of GK Films and Sony Pictures Worldwide. However, the cool thing is that film distributors like Fox Searchlight or Focus Features often give art-house films a chance at greater exposure through their parent companies. Drive made approximately $10 million in its opening weekend. Other recent (within the past 10 years) indie or art-house films like Black Swan and The Wrestler (Darren Aronofsky), The Royal Tenenbaums and The Life Aquatic (Wes Anderson), or There Will Be Blood and Magnolia (P.T. Anderson) have been unleashed upon mainstream audiences. I like this trend. Even if the majority of moviegoers who saw Drive don't "get" the concept, or they "get" it but just think the idea is stupid/pointless/uninteresting, at least the realization is out there that these films exist and that directors and artists are willing to approach a conventional premise (car-chase action thriller) from an alternative or unconventional perspective.
---
I failed to mention something in my previous entry on indie bands: video games. This week I read a story about how FIFA Soccer 12 used the track "Ice Cream" from Battles' new album Gloss Drop in a commercial featuring Steve Nash, among others:
I like this commercial because I like Battles and FIFA Soccer. Nailed it! But indie* bands have also been featured on the soundtracks of previous versions of FIFA for PS3 and/or Xbox. Passion Pit, Major Lazer, and Peter Bjorn and John songs all appeared in the 2010 version; Yeasayer, MGMT, LCD Soundsystem, We Are Scientists, and Chromeo were all a part of the 2011 version. Then I remembered that The National recently recorded the song "Exile Vilify" specifically. for the high-brow video game Portal 2:
The National's music publisher said that "after I met with Valve [the software company] and learned about the intricacies and story line of the first Portal game, I knew The National's music would fit beautifully in the sequel." I struggled to find a decent amount of discussion on this strange/symbiotic relationship; the best quotation I could find on Stereogum was: "I guess wallets are tight since Tyondai [Battles' former lead singer] (smartly) jumped this sinking ship." In other words: Battles ain't what they used to be, and now this is a sad (in the eyes of the elitist indie community on Stereogum) attempt to make some extra coin. However, video games provide a unique medium for the "distribution" of songs from indie bands, and this is a stealthy alternative to lending songs to ubiquitous commercials and enduring the subsequent backlash (see Vampire Weekend + Tommy Hilfiger or Wilco + Volkswagen).
* I realize that I use the term "indie" quite frequently in these blog posts, and I also realize that the term is difficult to define or conceptualize. I personally like how Michael Z. Newman, Assistant Professor of Journalism and Media Studies at UWM and a former grad school professor of mine, describes the term in his article “Indie Culture: In Pursuit of the Authentic Autonomous Alternative”: "Indie is contradictory insofar as it at once serves to oppose the dominant culture but also to produce cultural capital that distinguishes its consumers."
No comments:
Post a Comment