Als ich diesen wiederentdeckten Klassiker zum ersten Mal in den Händen hielt, musste ich mich erst mal hinsetzen, um die doch sehr trockene Materie zu verdauen.
Der zugegebenermassen etwas zähe Handlungsverlauf bringt trotz allem aber viele Stunden Unterhaltung und bleibt für eine lange Zeit haften.
Here’s some thought about one of my favourite movies of the last few years: «Drive» (which I am enjoying as I write).
I’ve always loved the movie, maybe even more every time I rewatch it. But I never really thought about the reasons why.
The things I registered up to now where that the overall mood of the film is somehow bright and dark at the same time, but in any case, very intriguing; The world of LA that is built seems sureal but inviting; the captivating pseudo-eighties soundtrack is great; and the colorful characters are interestingly written and even better executed by Cranston, Mulligan, Brooks, Hendricks, Perlman and Isaac (which I didn’t even remember was in that one).
But wait,… all the characters? …Of course not.
The main character, the nameless driver played by Ryan Gosling remains stoic, unapproachable even, unmoved by the occurances around him, may it be a heist, a car-stunt or some good ol’ boot heel kicking the shit out of a man’s skull.
Of course the internet has some opinions about this characterization: Some stated that he might be an autist or some kind of psychopath, (which he probably, surely is).
But though that might be an suitable character-trait (or better: the absence of such), I think the creators of «Drive» may had a different goal in mind:
While the protagonist’s behaviour could (and would) be interpreted as just awesome, unshakeable coolness, which is surely a trait that a male thirty-something viewer gladly can and will identify with, there might’ve been a difference plan at play.
Maybe it’s not so much a coolness but the mentioned absence of character that makes this movie so darn good. Instead of developing a «real» person the audience hopefully can identify with, the creators might intended to try out a different route: The video game approach.
Making the playable character in games often mute, sometimes faceless or having a customizable appeareance to mirror the player’s personality (or their wishes and fantasies) helps the player to project himself onto (into?) the main character.
This interpretation of «Drive» is probably old news, but it just got to me now:
«Drive»’s main character might have been left blank intentionally, for the viewer to fill in and by doing so, getting a more immersive viewing experience. (And Ryan Gosling’s looks surely help to make this projection even more inviting.)
So there you go. Probably not my best article, surely not written in my best english, and lacking some kind of arc. But «Drive» is still a hell of a great movie, nonetheless. If you haven’t watched it yet. Whattaruwaitingfoor?!!!
Post scriptum:
Watching the third act, I just realized that this movie is even more cleverer (yes, I just wrote that) than I thought (and I probably missed the whole point of it up until now):
In the final act, the whole no-character theme is taken to the next level when the driver puts on an almost life-like latex mask to hide his personality (even more) while doing some nasty deeds. Adding the given elevating soundtrack in this scene to the mix, it seems like the Driver all but reaches a state of complete absence of identity and personality, finally achieving some sort of climax of his evolution, becoming some kind of Über-mensch (no Nazi-relations intended, but some transportation business ones are).
The soundtrack underlying the last scene («real human being») seems to support the theory that the movie tries to make a point that the protagonist only finds his own humanity after he’s shed all his earthly individual traits and characteristics.
Just re-watching me some Marvel movie goodness and realized that one of the few nods to Tony Stark’s alcoholism (a feature I’d always considered to be central to the character) in the current MCU will probably be Stark’s shitfaced appearance in the nineties flashback at the beginning of «Iron Man 3».
Not to be complaining, I think his daddy issues work just fine as a character trait/motivation,… maybe even better considering his role in «Captain America 3: Civil War», without being too dark.
Nonetheless I can’t shake off the thought that almost 10 years ago, the powers that where considered Robert Downey Jr.’s drug-related history might be a suitable association for the well-informed comic book fan waiting for the next superhero movie to come (of which there weren’t that many around at the time).
Of course, that was before we all learned how truly, perfectly Robert Downey Jr. IS IRON MAN and, even without the booze, was defining Tony Stark for the big screen, clearing the path for a franchise we all learned to enjoy in a way we thought we never could.
(Now that I think of it, there was some heavy drinking in Iron Man part 2, but that didn’t lead anywhere either.)
PS: This is getting better and better: I think I just spotted a «The Silence of the Lambs» easter egg in «Iron Man 3» (in which the US-president is strung up in the «Iron Patriot» suit. I think the sound given at that moment supports that theory.)
<nitpicking>What really bugged me was his new cowl. Of course they really nailed its design compared to the model of season one, but in a show so gritty and «realistic» compared to similar presentations, I was somewhat surprised about a certain use of movie-magic revolving around the devil’s mask. When you spot it, you’ll know what I’m talking about and after that it’s really hard to unsee.</nitpicking>
But that’s it. Other than that, once more Daredevil is almost perfect television. Interesting characters well executed (please excuse the PUNisher), gripping story, stunning action, very easy on the eyes. And I loved his new toy and how they introduced it.
After the trainwreck I saw yesterday that was «Batman v Superman» I’m so glad at least one Studio knows what to do with its Superhero properties. I wonder what it would look like if Marvel could manage to take their spectacle to the big screen… oh wait, they did, and they do. Almost forgot there still lies a civil war ahead…
BTW: What I really liked about «Batman v Superman» was, surprisingly enough, the Batfleck. Not just his cowl, not just his whole costume, but his take on the character. Didn’t see that one coming. I wonder how Ben Affleck would do as Matt Murdock on the big screen… oh wait, he did. But let’s forget about that.