A.) He likely doesn't connect his 'second' life at night to his during the day, the split personality (not literally) of the character is emphasized a few ways throughout the picture, this might be one of them.
B.) Probably more likely though, is that he has a really strict rulebook so he minimizes the potential to get caught. Having guys talk to you about your jobs out in public probably violates the hell out of that.
A.) He likely doesn't connect his 'second' life at night to his during the day, the split personality (not literally) of the character is emphasized a few ways throughout the picture, this might be one of them.
B.) Probably more likely though, is that he has a really strict rulebook so he minimizes the potential to get caught. Having guys talk to you about your jobs out in public probably violates the hell out of that.
-Vader
Okay yeah that's a better description of it, that's pretty much what I saw in it.
I'm glad to see that someone else saw it the way I did, thanks.
Cilogy wrote:I don't think I've ever understood the "shut your mouth or I'll kick your teeth ..." scene. Is Driver essentially upset because someone is asking him for a job when he's "off duty"?
That's how I saw it, as if this random guy is asking Driver to do something, and the way he approaches him, the way he asks him, is "unprofessional" and outside of Driver's "code".
The reason I'm bringing this up is because it's the only thing in the film that I can never seem to understand, no matter how many times I watch it, it's never 100% clear to me.
because he drives for these people...he's not in the business of crime...hes not into talking to criminals...hes simply making a buck and trying to keep his guilty conscience clean by not associating with them
I've been thinking about Drive, and only recently realised what it was that bugged me so much since I saw it (when it was in cinemas). I thought it was amazing, yet I always cringed when critics referred to it as a "masterpiece", and thought it so hyperbolic.
I think my issue is that while the story works so well partly because it is so lean, and there's no fluff, at the same time I think it's too bare. I understand the appeal for both Refn and viewers in the way each scene has a purpose in informing some area of the characters' lives/relationships, and it's kind of like: "I'm showing you this aspect in this scene, got it? good, let's move on." But at the same time, doesn't anyone think there was so much more that could have been shown? I mean, Goodfellas is arguably like this, in that every scene has a purpose and the pace is very quick (e.g. the relationship of Karen with the other wives is covered completely in one swift scene), yet there's still time in Goodfellas to enjoy the people and the reality that is being created. With Drive I feel like we never got to just sit with these characters and enjoy them and see how they live. I know the whole narrative is constantly being propelled forward, and it's not a biopic, but does anyone else feel like there could have been other great scenes, other great nuances to the character, that could have been elaborated upon, just for the sake of enjoying a film and entertainment. Instead I feel like things are constantly being hinted at or nodded at, but there's not enough "meat". Surely there were other opportunities to create scenes like the beach scene? I feel like Refn was like: okay we have 4/5 good set pieces, and that's enough, no need to get too involved.
Sorry for this rant, just finally figured out what my issue was and wondered if anyone else felt the same, as I don't recall seeing any opinions along these lines in reviews/the start of this thread. Thoughts?
fromhelltomaine wrote:I've been thinking about Drive, and only recently realised what it was that bugged me so much since I saw it (when it was in cinemas). I thought it was amazing, yet I always cringed when critics referred to it as a "masterpiece", and thought it so hyperbolic.
I think my issue is that while the story works so well partly because it is so lean, and there's no fluff, at the same time I think it's too bare. I understand the appeal for both Refn and viewers in the way each scene has a purpose in informing some area of the characters' lives/relationships, and it's kind of like: "I'm showing you this aspect in this scene, got it? good, let's move on." But at the same time, doesn't anyone think there was so much more that could have been shown? I mean, Goodfellas is arguably like this, in that every scene has a purpose and the pace is very quick (e.g. the relationship of Karen with the other wives is covered completely in one swift scene), yet there's still time in Goodfellas to enjoy the people and the reality that is being created. With Drive I feel like we never got to just sit with these characters and enjoy them and see how they live. I know the whole narrative is constantly being propelled forward, and it's not a biopic, but does anyone else feel like there could have been other great scenes, other great nuances to the character, that could have been elaborated upon, just for the sake of enjoying a film and entertainment. Instead I feel like things are constantly being hinted at or nodded at, but there's not enough "meat". Surely there were other opportunities to create scenes like the beach scene? I feel like Refn was like: okay we have 4/5 good set pieces, and that's enough, no need to get too involved.
Sorry for this rant, just finally figured out what my issue was and wondered if anyone else felt the same, as I don't recall seeing any opinions along these lines in reviews/the start of this thread. Thoughts?
Drive is one of those films that comes out once in a while. It took me by surprise, and I became not only a fan of Nicolas Wending Refn, but Ryan Gosling's as well. I learned that how comfortable he is as an actor, and he understands the pace, and his surroundings in front of the camera. I also learned Refn's style. I have not read the novel, but did read the script, but after watching the film. I always read scripts, but I was inquisitive to read 'Drive' script to see how the 'action' was described on paper. It's a well balanced script as far as the simple storyline is concerned. I enjoyed it from its opening shot to final shot. What you are pointing out regarding the film the answer I believe is the STYLE. See, this film could have been shot like Crank and Transporter films. I am so that it is not; Refn's style is unique, he wanted to show the audience something fresh, we see characters and understand the gravity of their presence. Sometimes one line of dialogue can describe the background of the character. In this case, we have 'Standard' who is in prison. Driver asks Irene where is Standard when Irene offers him Water. We get to understand Driver by his living style. Keep things to himself and stays away from the world. He kisses Irene for the first time in the elevator which can be considered as a good-bye. He immediately jumps afterwards and crashes the skull of the other man in front of the girl. It's all about style.
