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.
