Skip to main content

Discussion on "Drive," at the New Yorker Movie Facebook Club


I just watched Drive again. What do you think about it. I just loved it's cinematography and it's way of saying so much with minimal dialouge. Oh and what soundtracks!! I just talked to some of my friends and people on the internet about it and some of them really dislike it. I could not understand why. Drop your comments I'd love to hear your opinions about it.

Patrick McEvoy-Halston There is something extremely grotesque in how Albert Brooks character tries to manage Cranston's character into a quiescent mood, even as he has just murdered him. He plays the nurse to him, even as he's clearly the executioner, and something in the movie has us detach ourselves to Crayston for understanding him as probably just agreeable at this point... can't put up a fight against his own desire to please by not being aggravating to someone who is speaking to him with some sympathy. Not a movie with much sympathy towards the weak, because no avenue is provided to involve ourselves with them without feeling like we've lent our own selves to 
Peter Hoffman Hypocrisy.

David Huskey That is a good point about Brook's actions after sneakily delivering a mortal wound, but I do see the movie as being sympathetic toward the weak. Brooks is a repulsive character and Cranstonis a sympathetic one. The story is one where the weak are at risk from stronger predators, but that is not presented as a good thing. The driver tries to help Standard (where's the de luxe version) and his wife and child, and appears to succeed with the latter two, who are the weakest and most vulnerable characters in the movie.

Patrick McEvoy-Halston David Huskey I wish I agreed with you, for I do like the film. Brooks is operating at a higher level of sanity than anyone but Gosling... and I think regarding Gosling's character, that it is regarded as such an estimable thing that I didn't really buy the film as for the weak--the very last thing it would have him do is perform in a way which was as hapless as Cranston. Being weak, has to be for other people, has to be displaced there. If being weak has to be outside oneself, it might be linked to it being associated to a sense of blameworthiness itself. Do we really like Standard? Or do we think he deserved dispatch for being so needy of rescue? About his wife and child, she flinches at his violence, but what do we think of people who draw back when someone simply stops pretending they're simply wallpaper... when they reveal the entirety of their competency? I think in a sense one becomes fed up with her. She becomes marginal. You'd take her in only because she's smaller than you, which is enabling for the insecure.

Peter Hoffman Kind of like, "The Hulk." or Jason Bourne.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Discussion over the fate of Jolenta, at the Gene Wolfe facebook appreciation site

Patrick McEvoy-Halston November 28 at 10:36 AM Why does Severian make almost no effort to develop sustained empathy for Jolenta -- no interest in her roots, what made her who she was -- even as she features so much in the first part of the narrative? Her fate at the end is one sustained gross happenstance after another... Severian has repeated sex with her while she lay half drugged, an act he argues later he imagines she wanted -- even as he admits it could appear to some, bald "rape" -- but which certainly followed his  discussion of her as someone whom he could hate so much it invited his desire to destroy her; Severian abandons her to Dr. Talus, who had threatened to kill her if she insisted on clinging to him; Baldanders robs her of her money; she's sucked at by blood bats, and, finally, left at death revealed discombobulated of all beauty... a hunk of junk, like that the Saltus citizens keep heaped away from their village for it ruining their preferred sense ...

Salon discussion of "Almost Famous" gang-rape scene

Patrick McEvoy-Halston: The "Almost Famous'" gang-rape scene? Isn't this the film that features the deflowering of a virgin -- out of boredom -- by a pack of predator-vixons, who otherwise thought so little of him they were quite willing to pee in his near vicinity? Maybe we'll come to conclude that "[t]he scene only works because people were stupid about [boy by girl] [. . .] rape at the time" (Amy Benfer). Sawmonkey: Lucky boy Pull that stick a few more inches out of your chute, Patrick. This was one of the best flicks of the decade. (sawmonkey, response to post, “Films of the decade: ‘Amost Famous’, R.J. Culter, Salon, 13 Dec. 2009) Patrick McEvoy-Halston: @sawmonkey It made an impression on me too. Great charm. Great friends. But it is one of the things you (or at least I) notice on the review, there is the SUGGESTION, with him being so (rightly) upset with the girls feeling so free to pee right before him, that sex with him is just further presump...

The Conjuring

The Conjuring 
I don't know if contemporary filmmakers are aware of it, but if they decide to set their films in the '70s, some of the affordments of that time are going to make them have to work harder to simply get a good scare from us. Who would you expect to have a more tenacious hold on that house, for example? The ghosts from Salem, or us from 2013, who've just been shown a New England home just a notch or two downscaled from being a Jeffersonian estate, that a single-income truck driver with some savings can afford? Seriously, though it's easy to credit that the father — Roger Perron—would get his family out of that house as fast as he could when trouble really stirs, we'd be more apt to still be wagering our losses—one dead dog, a wife accumulating bruises, some good scares to our kids—against what we might yet have full claim to. The losses will get their nursing—even the heavy traumas, maybe—if out of this we've still got a house—really,...