Amidst stifled exclamations of horror, soft nervous laughter, an older couple leaving the theater, and a subsequent lawsuit addressing the trailer for the film, Nicholas Winding Refn recently provided American (and international) audiences with a voyeuristic, concise, and shocking portrayal of the extensive (if not mind-bogglingly never-ending) grey areas of human morality. As a sort of abrasive study on the extent of atrocity as well as the power of the proverbial heart, 'Drive' blends an atmospheric romance with a blood-soaked gangster story, both placed in between an intricate layer cake of character studies. Less wordy version: Hell yeah.
Addressing the recent lawsuit by a Michigan woman against the studio that released 'Drive,' wherein the woman claimed that the trailer mis-promoted the film, saying that "[The studio] promoted the film 'Drive' as very similar to the 'Fast and Furious,' or similar, series of movies....'Drive' bore very little similarity to a chase, or race action film... having very little driving in the motion picture," I shall quote a filmmaker who claimed that "people will flock to the theaters to see Ryan Gosling speeding around (in competition with Jason Bourne), but that the majority of the audiences will be knocked flat on their ass in shock." Damn, what an intuitive fella.
The fact that the film gained critical success all over the map, including the win for "Best Director" at the 2011 Cannes Film Festival (Nominated 'Palm de'or'), and the #128 spot on IMDB's top 250, put alongside the fact that the film stayed in theaters all of maybe two weeks, profited very little, and seemed to climax with a lawsuit, there was obviously a communication breakdown. Either THAT, or the production company didn't want the trailer to show Ryan Gosling stomping a mobster's head into pieces in an elevator for 2 minutes. Regardless, there's enough down-time and what seems like slow-motion in the film to have created a pathos-fueled trailer similar to the mood of the film, made simply of the more grim images of the piece; Ryan Gosling in a 'stunt double' mask that is eerily similar to that of Michael Myers, the beautiful city-scapes, and the reflection of the moon in the wavy waters of the ocean (yes, as Gosling drowns someone in it...).
The director, Refn, takes the phrase 'Less is more' to a different level, in a different elevator, in an entirely different building. He takes excessively more violence, and packs it into a tiny fraction of the time. So, the horror that a viewer might experience through watching Tony Montana murder maybe 30-40 people with an M-16 for 15 minutes in "Scarface," Refn accomplishes in a scene of about 4-11 seconds, followed by nervous tension in the diegesis of the narrative, a concise, affecting line of dialogue, and a slow transition. The explicitness of the violence in the film increases tenfold as the duration of the violence decreases to the point where it equivocates the time of about three eye blinks (unless you're completely shocked like most viewers in the theater, and you can't close your eyes). Refn applies a 'Less is more' twist to every aspect of his film - not just the violence (quite possibly the character development most of all). Refn allows his characters to quite often say very little, vocally, providing more room on-screen for the contemplative atmosphere and tone of the character's state. Somehow, we learn more about the characters...the less they speak. He uses 'Empty space' as an opportunity to express how a character might realistically act or react to an incident. While most films these days encourage a given actor to rise to his feet, whip out pistols, and shoot everyone in sight because he didn't get his coffee with an extra shot of espresso, Refn takes the opportunity to show indifference, contemplation, or indecision (aside from head stomping - that seems quite decisive).
Having already been listed as #128 on IMDB's top 250 only three days after it's release, it has become abundantly clear that the film has gained status as a masterful piece of (possible) cult audiences. Although catering to independent filmmakers and mobster-flick fanatics alike, 'Drive' has found it's audience. The sole marketing issue was found in the distance between the portrayal of the film via the trailer, and the actual film itself. I initially watched the trailer with a subtle scowl on my face, thinking "Wow, Ryan Gosling's taking up an action-car-race flick? I feel sad. What happened to 'Half Nelson,' 'Blue Valentine' and 'Stay?'" (that's right, I left out 'The Notebook.') I pondered what seemed like a conundrum to me for a good while - Ryan Gosling snubbed twice at the Oscars and now resorting to taking up an action role - until they cued title 'Drive,' followed by the sole credit 'Directed by Nicholas Winding Refn' and I stopped in my tracks. I began to study the trailer a little bit more closely - viewing it more as a collage of dark elements, rather than a cohesive representation of the film. These 'action-elements' that seemed to be present in the trailer never came to fruition, now appearing more so as a tool of subtle build-up for the film's narrative, ironically hinting at a somewhat apocalyptic downward spiral of mood and character (in a good way). And so, having seen every one of the director's films, I realized that this tonally-confused trailer was based on a couple things: 1.) Marketing to sell tickets RATHER than marketing to sell the movie, and 2.) A culture barrier. Refn (born in Denmark) brings his dark, brooding, blood-soaked stories to the screen time and time again, increasing in pathos with each story (the latest cout de gras being this shocking English-speaking debut).
The question then becomes; How does one market this film to an American audience? The film's absolute genre-amalgamation (also known as the 'Original Film') can't cater to any ONE audience. The movie's sporadic interchange and oscillation between slow, fast, punctual, and 'contemplative' provides a conundrum for the marketing of the film. The trailer can't focus on the violence, because it is too sparse and quick, and the trailer can't focus on the in-depth character studies that Refn provides via subtle semiotics and mind-blowing 'mise-en-scene' because the trailer would never end. So, let's scratch those ideas. Maybe the marketing for 'Drive' could focus on the intense, almost never-spoken romantic relationship between Gosling and the lead actress, but...this might be the most mis-leading trailer. So what's left, here? Well...the film has a heart-throb of a lead actor, and some driving! Let's put Gosling in a car, focus on his face, cue some voice over, add a tire screech, and end trailer! "Everybody see the 'driving around fast and shooting people movie!" (There were actually only a few bullets in the entire film. Refn is more akin to using hatchets, knives, forks, and boots). Fact: Mis-marketing. Fact: Unavoidable. Fact: Refn doesn't know how to drive (seriously). Fact: Redundancy. So yes, initially I was angry at the trailer, but glad that I had prepared myself for a film that my father seemed on the brink of walking out of, shadowing his gaze with haste from the screen, accompanied by an "Oh God!" as Albert Brooks relentlessly stabs a man in the chest with a kitchen knife, having a fork already shoved into the man's eye.
The fact is that the movie had an unbeatable pace. Quite often, filmmakers claim that "90% of directing is casting." If we consider the minimal dialogue, and the character choices, the casting for 'Drive' should officially create a new Award for the oscars (Yes - best casting - although considering how collaborative the casting process is, it's entirely unlikely). Gosling is one of the foremost masters of delivering a message through a facial expression (as can be seen in 'Half Nelson' maybe more clearly), and Gosling has maybe 5 lines in the entire film, and 2 of them are repeated. It's also one of the best performances of the year. Guys, let's all think about this phrase: "The Oscar for best dramatic face-dialogue goes to..."
The film contains literally every genre, allowing it to be, in a way, genre-less. The marketers, editors, exhibitors, etc. were presented with the necessity to pick an audience to cater to. So...they picked the 'Action-Car-Race-Sexy Actors-Film,' and of course there is already a lawsuit. I now wonder how many more people would be suing the film if the trailer had focused on the intense, downplayed romantic relationship in the film....I can just see it now;
"'Drive,' a beautiful depiction of an understated romance, not only expresses the intricate details of a forbidden relationship, but also EYE STABBING, ARM CUTTING, AND BUTCHERING! A great film for those cinema-lovers out there that want to murder each other. 'The Notebook' meets 'American Psycho' meets a bottle of scotch after the movie."
Beautiful.
My point here is; unless we altered the accepted formula for the 'trailer' so that we could compose a single trailer out of a series of one hundred 0.3 second shots, than maybe the 'Drive' trailer could express a bit more. But, as is clear, this would end in 0 attendance at the theaters, and about 5 lawsuits concerning "Trailer-Caused Epilepsy."
Having said all that - I'm hiring Gosling as my chauffeur.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Friday, September 30, 2011
Netflix Monopolizes Inefficiancy, Prepares for 2012 Election
As a concise monopolization of groundbreaking Inefficiency, Netflix has diverted (with jarring haste) from any initial, fathomable idea of a 'productive' company to focus solely on walking the fine line into a conceptual quasi-masturbatory waste of time, money, and potential fall to death...from the aforementioned 'fine line,' which I should rather refer to as 'a line of cocaine' for the managerially fiendish and morally archetypal (ACHEM, Mr. CEO). The company has officially bought the proverbial Park Place and Boardwalk, burned Boardwalk to the ground and turned Park Place into a brothel. Now, when a customer travels to Boardwalk for a getaway, or a DVD, Netflix can officially say "Kiss my ash, go next door and get f*cked" (don't worry - I'll lash myself for that pun).
I was not taken aback by the Netflix CEO's personal 'letter of apology,' which only served as a roundabout of subtly-masked 'fuck you's.' The singular, distinct, and monotonously abrupt apology from the CEO was equivalent to (Neigh, it WAS) a diversion for the Netflix-fellating audiences (myself included - that filmic cunnilingus really works out my synapse muscles). Diversion, distraction, inaction, wordiness, unnecessary words, words, WORD - my point here; it distracts from the fact that the company is splitting into different websites, different names, yet continuing with the same increased prices. In the same e-mail where the CEO delivered the most belligerently half-assed 'apology,' he also took the opportunity to declare that the exorbitantly increased prices were not going to change and that, furthermore, the website was splitting into two different websites (one for streaming, one for rentals), and that there would be a different name. I was initially going to avidly call out the 'Illiterate Ghostwriter' behind the CEO's apology letter, but I've realized that the CEO is his own ghost...
In an ironic twist of Capitalism, the more we spend, the more we are charged, and the more we spend and...oh, yeah that's pretty much right on. Well hell, I'll give em my wallet and Dunkin Donuts gift card, too. Case Solved. Netflix has become an amalgamation of coin-hording, manipulative film availability, genre bureaucracy, and now PRICE bureaucracy. I've attempted to avoid bureaucracy all of my life, but when you make me saunter through a DVD-labyrinth of 'unavailable,' 'not streaming,' 'expiring in 30 minutes,' and 'lost in the mail' to get to a movie I want to see, you officially made my 'Shit-List of Counterproduction,' the acronym for which is 'SLC,' which really stands for 'Slick-Lipped Cabaret,' or more aptly called 'The damned circus.' The more money we spend on Netflix, the more we are going to have to pay in the future. Generally, it's a give and take. This has become a give, and then a prolonged wait, and then a letter of apology. Summary: Counterproduction. (And I wouldn't be surprised if we started to get "IOU's" instead of "DVD's.")
Whether anyone has mused, pondered, or publicly vocalized it or not, it's clear to me that Netflix is officially strapping on it's full metal jacket to politically cover its ass for the 2012 election. Consistently and systematically removing any and all political films from their streaming queue (and throwing in a disproportionately small number of other films), Netflix prepares for an Armageddon of indifference - what we generally refer to as a 'facade.' In preparation to become so unbiased that it might just start producing, selling, and charging 'bias' on a monthly basis, it can be argued that Netflix cannot be held responsible for any apparent political agenda/viewpoint. To some - this would be deemed 'smart, protective, and efficient' to others it is named 'cowardice,' and to the CEO, it is most likely known as 'What about movies? Where am I, anyway? Can we buy actors yet? How much could we charge to send an actor in the mail? Shit, I bet that's a whole lot of shipping and handling."
Netflix (now re-named 'Quickster,' so that we can never get our films...more quickly) allows a maximum DVD queue of 500, which I've embraced. So I notice that, every couple of months, Netflix has a 'purging' of DVD's and, since my queue serves more appropriately as a 'Panic Room' for my mind, I always notice the 20-30 expiration dates listed next to the films that are soon to expire in my queue. And every time, it's the same song and dance for me, staring at my queue, exclaiming "Oh damn! That movie's expiring?,' followed by "Oh damn, THAT movie's expiring?,' followed by every different combination of those words and emphases about...well 20-30 times. And during the past two 'purgings,' I've noticed something suspiciously disturbing; there has been a dramatic spike in expiring films, AND the expiring films are almost all politically oriented. Covering the entire spectrum from political satire to gut-wrenching Vietnam dramas, these films are quickly disappearing from availability. I WILL give Netflix props for being unbiased in which political films they remove - it's simply every one. It might seem, however, that to go to such extreme lengths for a 'politically neutral' stance is a bit suspicious...quite simply the antithesis of 'unbiased.' I'm not getting into the argument that 'nothing is unbiased because to choose to be unbiased is biased,' but maybe I just did. Oops. But I will say this; I did proactively use the phrase 'Full Metal Jacket' earlier in this post in relation to Netflix only to achieve my personal, ironic, and moot revenge on the fact that the film 'Full Metal Jacket' is being removed shortly, and I need to re-watch it before they do (just got done with 'The Quiet American' 'Hoffa,' 'The Conversation, (wire-tapping)' 'The Interpretor,' 'Missing,' '1969' 'Proof of Life,' 'The Badge (political scandals),' and...'Sgt. Bilko.' Yes. I did say they were unbiased with their unbiased).
And here is an Oscar Addendum:
Best Score - "Coriolanus," "J Edgar"
Best Doc - "The Swell Season"
I was not taken aback by the Netflix CEO's personal 'letter of apology,' which only served as a roundabout of subtly-masked 'fuck you's.' The singular, distinct, and monotonously abrupt apology from the CEO was equivalent to (Neigh, it WAS) a diversion for the Netflix-fellating audiences (myself included - that filmic cunnilingus really works out my synapse muscles). Diversion, distraction, inaction, wordiness, unnecessary words, words, WORD - my point here; it distracts from the fact that the company is splitting into different websites, different names, yet continuing with the same increased prices. In the same e-mail where the CEO delivered the most belligerently half-assed 'apology,' he also took the opportunity to declare that the exorbitantly increased prices were not going to change and that, furthermore, the website was splitting into two different websites (one for streaming, one for rentals), and that there would be a different name. I was initially going to avidly call out the 'Illiterate Ghostwriter' behind the CEO's apology letter, but I've realized that the CEO is his own ghost...
In an ironic twist of Capitalism, the more we spend, the more we are charged, and the more we spend and...oh, yeah that's pretty much right on. Well hell, I'll give em my wallet and Dunkin Donuts gift card, too. Case Solved. Netflix has become an amalgamation of coin-hording, manipulative film availability, genre bureaucracy, and now PRICE bureaucracy. I've attempted to avoid bureaucracy all of my life, but when you make me saunter through a DVD-labyrinth of 'unavailable,' 'not streaming,' 'expiring in 30 minutes,' and 'lost in the mail' to get to a movie I want to see, you officially made my 'Shit-List of Counterproduction,' the acronym for which is 'SLC,' which really stands for 'Slick-Lipped Cabaret,' or more aptly called 'The damned circus.' The more money we spend on Netflix, the more we are going to have to pay in the future. Generally, it's a give and take. This has become a give, and then a prolonged wait, and then a letter of apology. Summary: Counterproduction. (And I wouldn't be surprised if we started to get "IOU's" instead of "DVD's.")
Whether anyone has mused, pondered, or publicly vocalized it or not, it's clear to me that Netflix is officially strapping on it's full metal jacket to politically cover its ass for the 2012 election. Consistently and systematically removing any and all political films from their streaming queue (and throwing in a disproportionately small number of other films), Netflix prepares for an Armageddon of indifference - what we generally refer to as a 'facade.' In preparation to become so unbiased that it might just start producing, selling, and charging 'bias' on a monthly basis, it can be argued that Netflix cannot be held responsible for any apparent political agenda/viewpoint. To some - this would be deemed 'smart, protective, and efficient' to others it is named 'cowardice,' and to the CEO, it is most likely known as 'What about movies? Where am I, anyway? Can we buy actors yet? How much could we charge to send an actor in the mail? Shit, I bet that's a whole lot of shipping and handling."
Netflix (now re-named 'Quickster,' so that we can never get our films...more quickly) allows a maximum DVD queue of 500, which I've embraced. So I notice that, every couple of months, Netflix has a 'purging' of DVD's and, since my queue serves more appropriately as a 'Panic Room' for my mind, I always notice the 20-30 expiration dates listed next to the films that are soon to expire in my queue. And every time, it's the same song and dance for me, staring at my queue, exclaiming "Oh damn! That movie's expiring?,' followed by "Oh damn, THAT movie's expiring?,' followed by every different combination of those words and emphases about...well 20-30 times. And during the past two 'purgings,' I've noticed something suspiciously disturbing; there has been a dramatic spike in expiring films, AND the expiring films are almost all politically oriented. Covering the entire spectrum from political satire to gut-wrenching Vietnam dramas, these films are quickly disappearing from availability. I WILL give Netflix props for being unbiased in which political films they remove - it's simply every one. It might seem, however, that to go to such extreme lengths for a 'politically neutral' stance is a bit suspicious...quite simply the antithesis of 'unbiased.' I'm not getting into the argument that 'nothing is unbiased because to choose to be unbiased is biased,' but maybe I just did. Oops. But I will say this; I did proactively use the phrase 'Full Metal Jacket' earlier in this post in relation to Netflix only to achieve my personal, ironic, and moot revenge on the fact that the film 'Full Metal Jacket' is being removed shortly, and I need to re-watch it before they do (just got done with 'The Quiet American' 'Hoffa,' 'The Conversation, (wire-tapping)' 'The Interpretor,' 'Missing,' '1969' 'Proof of Life,' 'The Badge (political scandals),' and...'Sgt. Bilko.' Yes. I did say they were unbiased with their unbiased).
And here is an Oscar Addendum:
Best Score - "Coriolanus," "J Edgar"
Best Doc - "The Swell Season"
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Aesthetic Punchlines - A Filmmaker's Introduction
To make a punctual rim-shot of an introduction, I'm simply going to list my Oscar Nominations for flicks that I haven't seen yet, if only to give an idea of my filmic foreplay. Now this isn't some sort of inane statement contrived to make a satirical point about just how deep into the murky waters of cinema that I actually am - rather, I swear to God (Achem, sorry, I mean Paul Thomas Anderson, ACHEM, excuse me, I really did mean God) that all these nominations have reasoning behind them. And I understand, now, that I absolutely cannot go around telling people who I think will win at the 2012 Oscars, concerning films that have not been released yet and filmmakers that nobody knows anything about. Apparently, if I wish to deduce Oscar nominations without a prior viewing, McClean hospital seems to be the place to go and do it. When I say something like "A flick called 'Drive' is coming out, and it will be nominated for 'best director' solely on the grounds that the grittiness and character depth that the writer/director (Refn) consistently brings to the screen has never been seen or adapted into the English language, and people will flock to the theaters to see Ryan Gosling speeding around (in competition with Jason Bourne), but that the majority of the audiences will be knocked flat on their ass in shock," I most often get a prolonged stare accompanied with a nervous lip-bite, or simply a proverbial slap in the face. Now don't get me wrong - I enjoy my proverbial slaps in the face as much as I love actual slaps on my ass, but a longer explanation is always demanded and my breathe is generally short from running away from the '28 Days Later' zombies.
The fact is that when I speak about film, I generally need a preface, a prologue, a preface for my prologue, an introduction to my preface, and than an annotated foreshadowing of my appendix...and one more preface. However much I was bored by the film in the theater, I quote the recently released 'Contagion,' where a character says "You're not a writer - you blog. Blogging is not writing - it's graffiti with punctuation." Well...the line of dialogue took me off guard for the one and only time in the movie, and I thought; "I like graffiti, and I do enjoy a good dose of punctuation, so what's this 'Blog' that I hear about? Can I ramble? Can I ramble about rambling?" Apparently so, however I will attempt to keep the more absurd ramblings six feet deep where the '28 Weeks Later' zombies should be. (That's right. I said it. That sequel made me wanna choke on a magnum).
So I'm going to list my early Oscar contenders - and it should be pretty clear which flicks I haven't seen yet...because they will not be playing anywhere. (Actually 'Drive' came out this passed Friday, but my car is ironically f*cked, and I can't suck it up and walk to 'Drive.')
This is not every category, and with the ever-changing flow of nomination counts, I'm officially confused with the officiality of how many nominations we officially officize in offices (you can re-type it if you have issues with that statement.)
***The only flicks here that I’ve seen are: The Tree of Life, Midnight in Paris, Super 8, Rise of the Planet of the Apes, Another Earth
Best Picture
“Midnight in Paris”
“J. Edgar”
"The Tree of Life"
“Drive”
"The Tree of Life"
“Drive”
“The Help”
“Moneyball”
“Moneyball”
“Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy”
“Super 8”
“Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2”
"Coriolanus"
Best Lead Actor
Joseph Gordon Levitt – “50/50”
Brad Pitt - "Moneyball"
Leonardo DiCaprio – “J. Edgar” – WIN
Michael Shannon - "Take Shelter"
Brendan Gleeson – “The Guard”
Ralph Fiennes - "Coriolanus"
Gary Oldman – “Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy
Gerard Butler – “Machine Gun Preacher” (Fuck it. I’ll write it)
Best Supporting Actor
Corey Stoll – “Midnight in Paris” (Hemingway)
Albert Brooks - “Drive”
Eddie Marsan – “Tyrannosaur”
William Mapother – “Another Earth”
Christopher Plummer – “Beginners”
Nick Nolte – “Warrior”
Best Lead Actress
Olivia Colman - “Tyrannosaur”
Meryl Streep – “The Iron Lady” – WIN
Jessica Chastain – “The Tree of Life”
Michelle Williams – “My Week With Marilyn”
Naomi Watts – “J. Edgar”
Best Supporting Actress
Elle Fanning – “Super 8”
Vanessa Redgrave – “Coriolanus”
Best Director
Terrence Mallick - "The Tree of Life"
Woody Allen – “Midnight in Paris”
J.J Abrams - “Super 8”
Ralph Fienes - "Coriolanus"
Nicholas Winding Refn - "Drive"
Paddy Considine – “Tyrannosaur”
Clint Eastwood – “J. Edgar”
Best Cinematography
"Drive"
"Coriolanus"
“The Tree of Life” – WIN (Or I drop dead)
“J. Edgar”
“Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy”
“Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2”
“Rise of the Planet of the Apes”
Best Original Screenplay
"Midnight in Paris" (2011) Woody Allen
"The Guard," (2011) John Michael McDonagh
"Beginners"
“Tyrannosaur”
“50/50”
“Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy”
“J Edgar” (Adapted)
“Coriolanus” (Adapted)
"Another Earth" (I just hope not)
Best Sound Editing
“Super 8”
“Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2”
“Transformers: Dark of the Moon”
“Pirates of the Carribbean: On Stranger Tides”
“Rise of the Planet of the Apes” - WIN
Best Sound Mixing
“Super 8” - WIN
“Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2”
“Transformers: Dark of the Moon”
“Pirates of the Carribbean: On Stranger Tides”
““Rise of the Planet of the Apes”
Best Special Effects
“Super 8”
“Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2”
“Transformers: Dark of the Moon”
“Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides”
“Rise of the Planet of the Apes” – WIN
Best foreign Language
Circumstance (2011)
I'll be seeing 'Drive' and commenting on that soon. I suppose biking to 'Drive' is a good middle-ground, although the director will provide me with plenty middle ground.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)