I still remember where I was the first time that I saw the trailer for Drive (2011). A friend and I had decided to attend an early showing of Attack the Block (2011) at the ArcLight Theater in Hollywood, CA. In the trailers leading up to it was this magnificent coming attraction for a Ryan Gosling movie. Fresh into his art-house phase, the trailer set to classical music was such an exciting blast of energy. Gosling was a strong and stoic type. Cars were flipping through the air. It felt like a calm before the storm, and both of us sat there with our mouths slowly becoming agape. Was this going to be the best movie ever?
Without getting into the rest, I’ll simply say that our anticipation was through the roof. We may have differed as to how great the final product was, but at that time our interest couldn’t have been higher. The trailer had effectively sold this film that was going to be meticulous, a Cliff Martinez score that pulsated like a dripping tap. Visually, it was so cool. Director Nicholas Winding Refn had a pallet that few films had emulated at the time, whose neon colors dazzled. Was this going to be some Miami Vice-style detective story? What was this world of Gosling carrying a hammer and kissing Carey Mulligan?
I think of this moment in lieu of its 10th anniversary, where it starts another decade of legacy. Much like Scott Pilgrim vs. the World (2010) the summer before, Drive was one of those films that taught me that what exhilarated me didn’t always connect with others. In the case of Refn’s work, I remember being at my grocery store job and having a coworker look befuddled at me and say “But it was boring.” Rewatching the film, I still got the rush that I did, but it was one of those moments where I realized how subjective cinema was, that sometimes people had differing opinions and that was fine. We were still friends, but we’d never agree if Drive was a good movie or not.
So the question ultimately becomes a study of expectation versus reality. If the only marketing that someone had seen going into Drive was that trailer I saw at The ArcLight, would I feel cheated?
I can honestly see both sides of the argument. The argument that it was straightforward feels more difficult to understand. On the one hand, every scene that the trailer uses (which, unfortunately, is almost every major action set piece) actually has that adrenaline within the film. The intensity and shock work because of the calm, the unexpected wait as Gosling quietly looks on. The hints of violence feel like undertones to actual character development. Also, between the Martinez score and use of classical music, there is already this sense that there’s going to be a more artistic flourish, that this isn’t a direct action film (at least by 2011 standards). Even the cinematography at times feels a little too art house for its own good.
The other side feels way easier to understand, especially in a society where this would be their only interaction with Refn. It’s doubtful that they would see Only God Forgives (2013) or The Neon Demon (2016), which were even more esoteric and strange. Drive remains his most accessible work, and even that is rooted in fear, a lingering dread. Characters have these pondering conversations reflective of their worlds spiraling out of control. For those interested in drama, it’s intense. For those who want action stories, it’s the ultimate cop-out. The trailer promises so much action and that’s only 25% of the bigger experience.
There was one film in particular that audiences often compared Drive to at the time: Fast Five (2011). Some of the components were obvious. They were both car movies about pulling heists, their trailers both promising spectacle. The big difference is that Fast Five was a crowd-pleasing blockbuster that wasn’t afraid to be bold and brazen. Subtlety was thrown out the window in favor of earnest cheesiness, overblown special effects depicting a car dragging a bank vault down the street. For those who wanted something visceral and immediate, Fast Five was perceived as a masterpiece, bringing the world of action stars together for what many consider the pinnacle of The Fast and the Furious franchise.
Enter Sarah Deming from Michigan.
Deming was far from the only person who personally felt disappointed by Drive. It is arguable if the overall reputation on a mainstream level has been positive in the decade since. For art house fans, it’s still a high point. However, she came down on the side of REALLY disliking the film. Whereas most would walk home and mumble about how they wish they could get a refund, she openly argued that she deserved one. She personally believed that it was her right under The Michigan Consumer Protection Act for reasons that are much more complicated than simple “false advertising.”
On September 27, 2011, Deming filed the lawsuit with the complaints that:
Drive was promoted as very similar to Fast and Furious (2009), when in actuality, it wasn’t.
Drive bore very little similarity to a chase, or race action film, for reasons including but not limited to Drive having very little driving in the motion picture.
Extreme gratuitous defamatory dehumanizing racism directed against members of the Jewish faith.
Even at the time, this felt farcical, even absurd. Not a week goes by where somebody walked out of a theater disappointed with how the story turned out. That’s just the way of a subjective medium. With that said, any vague sympathy for her does crop up in the fact that the trailer could be perceived a misleading. Nobody wants to be sold a horror movie with a comedy trailer. There are certain responsibilities when advertising a movie, and Drive was a much more complicated fare. In an alternate world, the film would never have been popular, mostly playing small theaters where the divided criticism would feel a tad more muted. By some miracle of being at the right place at the right time, Refn got it into a nationwide release that hit audiences at the right time. Like the weirdest of art-house cinema, most people weren’t ready to question their understanding of tone and atmosphere. It was a preference they wouldn’t accept in a year where Fast Five existed.
Part of the conversation gets lost in the fact that those who liked the movie adopted it as a style. Gosling’s jacket with a scorpion became iconography. Martinez’s score had a dark and ominous quality that was easy to love. Even the use of music, notably Kavinsky’s “Nightcall,” became cult classics to the point of parody. Conversations around whether Gosling was even a good actor for how quiet he was were frequent. The film was exactly what a cinephile would want in 2011, which was something with a lot of interesting little quirks, not to mention a genuine push to get Albert Brooks an overdue Oscar nomination.
There were two worlds for Drive, and Deming fit into one that I’d argue was more common. The most vocal was that it was boring. There wasn’t a lot of driving. How could a movie that promised awesome car action fail to have that for more than five minutes at a time? I don’t blame these people who misunderstood the assignment. I’m sure if Refn was more in control of the trailer, it would’ve looked more isolating and accurate to the vision, but probably sold a quarter as many tickets. To their credit, the editors did a fantastic job of raising awareness.
In doing research, there isn’t much to suggest that Deming ever got a conclusion. Maybe it all was just some attempt to get attention. The case remains a ridiculous footnote that doesn’t even appear on the film’s Wikipedia page but reminds us all of how subjective art is. Drive was an extreme example of a film failing to connect with an audience. Even mother! (2017), which had an F audience rating from CinemaScore, didn’t have a lawsuit for being far more traumatic and intense than anything the trailers promised. Of course, that’s the difference between art-house movies based on genre.
Though to quickly address the other point of her lawsuit. She wanted to have warnings about the film being Anti-Semitic. It promoted negative images of Jews, featuring certain slurs and painting them as corrupt. This was especially true in Ron Perlman’s case, though some have argued that Brooks was also written Jewish. Little of the film suggests that they are evil because of their religion, making this point more moot. They are more evil because of personal ties to crime. While a more rational point on a personal level, accusing Drive of being one of the most offensive portrayals is inaccurate. There are more intentionally offensive movies out there for perusing.
On the one hand, I am glad that this lawsuit was ultimately buried. It always had a dumb premise that reflected a personal misunderstanding of media. It does have me concerned that people still are disappointed that movies don’t deliver EXACTLY what they want, that they won’t take narrative risks, but that’s more of a personal matter. There hasn’t been a lawsuit for every one of these complaints, just endless Twitter threads dedicated to overanalyzing the nonsense. However, I think there’s value in remembering this lawsuit both for comedy but also to reflect the cautionary tale of advertising, of how difficult it is to appeal to mass audiences when your film is intentionally anything but.
Where do I fall on the debate of the Drive trailer? As I said from the start, it was is a great piece of marketing. Especially in 2011, there weren’t as many films using such artful soundtrack choices, turning action into this quiet drama for the soul. Things have changed slightly since. The Fast and the Furious Franchise is now flying through space. Meanwhile, Refn has only made more niche content like Too Old to Die Young. Personally, I don’t think he’s concerned if Deming disliked his film. She’d probably hate his other stuff a whole lot more, so take a win where you can.
Comments
Post a Comment