This blog informs you of future Connect Group events, and provides a forum to share insights on other movies from an ethical and biblical perspective. I encourage respectful conversation, even if we disagree.

Thursday, January 26, 2012

Drive -- moral ambiguity and gratuitous violence








Director: Nicolas Refn, 2011. (R) 

The opening scene is a car chase through the dark streets of Los Angeles. The Driver (Ryan Gosling, Crazy, Stupid Love) tells the two robbers, before letting them out for the robbery, “If I drive for you, you give me a time and a place. I give you a five-minute window, anything happens in that five minutes and I’m yours no matter what. I don’t sit in while you’re running it down. I don’t carry a gun. . . . I drive.” Offering no margin for error, Driver has his own set of morals. Yet, as we will explore, one of the themes of Drive is moral ambiguity, and the film itself enters into the realm of genre ambiguity.

Marketed as a thriller, Drive is modern film noir with themes of crime doesn’t pay and bad choice eventually catch up with you. But the unnamed protagonist, only referred to as Driver or Kid throughout, is a sweet-avenger with a gentle voice, not a typical macho noir hero. Yet, it resembles just as much a modern Western, bringing to mind Clint Eastwood’s "Man with No Name" trilogy (A Fistful of Dollars, etc). Like Eastwood’s character in those spaghetti westerns Driver is the strong, silent type, a solitary figure with a sardonic smile. Alienated from others, he has no emotional links, he owns little and keeps to himself.

Drive gives us no backstory on Driver or any of the characters in the film. There is only present, no past and ultimately no future. Driver never focuses on the past, never analyzes his actions in the present. It is almost symptomatic of our current age where living for the now is the epitome. Nothing else matters.

The initial chase puts Driver’s skills on display: his oneness with his car, his acute sense of the presence of the police, and his absolute calmness in the presence of danger. Throughout he refuses conversation. He has one focus: the job. Later we learn that Driver works by day as a mechanic in a garage for Shannon (Bryan Cranston) who also gets him gigs as a Hollywood stunt driver. Shannon also gets him the gigs as a getaway driver by night, for crooks he does not know and never meets again. We never know why he lives this life of crime; he does not need the money, as he seems to have littler consumerist tendencies and no obvious future planning.

When Driver runs into Irene (Carey Mulligan, An Education) and her young son, his emotional hardness is pierced and his barriers fall. With her husband, Standard (Oscar Isaac), in prison, she needs help. As he comes to her aid as a savior, he begins an unexpected relationship. Long quiet drives deepen their platonic friendship. Her innocence contrasts with his brokenness and may provide the reason why he protects her in a messianic fashion.

Meanwhile, Shannon gets into a shady relationship with two mobsters played by Albert Brooks and Ron Perlman. They agree to fund his idea of buying a stock-car that Driver will race. But getting into bed with the devil is a bad idea, and will come back to haunt a person.

When Standard gets out of prison, thugs come looking for him: he owes cash, lots of cash. Seeking to help Irene, Driver offers to do one last job with Standard, to get him out from under his debt. Of course, this job goes wrong, horribly wrong, and Driver finds himself with a duffel bagful of cash being hunted by hit men.

Having just spent a weekend in a coaching class, I was struck by one scene. When Driver finds Standard beaten and bloody, he stands facing him and asks him what happened. He listens quietly. When Standard finishes his explanation, Driver pauses to think, then asks, “So, what are you going to do about it?” Such attentive listening and focused questioning, helping the person to look inside for answers to his own problems is the definition of co-active coaching. It’s a great summation.

The first act is actually slow and quiet. Driver and Irene make little conversation, they mostly communicate through gazing at each other. With a synth soundtrack, and a hot pink font for the credit’s typography, the film is sleek and stylish, oozing visual flair. And then with a suddenness that shocks, Nicolas Refn brings on the violence. From the first shotgun killing to the fork in the eye, the violence is gory and over-the-top, brutal and bloody. With each new killing, Refn ups the stakes and amplifies the graphic nature of the bloody scene. And it is unnecessary. Indeed, its gratuitous nature becomes an affront to the audience.

This theme of violence highlights the cyclical nature of violence. Greg Garrett, professor of English and author of books on Hollywood film and culture, comments, in his blog review on Drive, on the impact of violence:
In pop culture, our Christ figures - whether they are Neo in The Matrix or The Preacher in Clint Eastwood's Pale Rider - employ violence to save innocents, and that understanding informs what we do as a nation. Executing criminals, torturing terrorists, bombing opposing nations-we are believers that violence can solve problems, perhaps because, at least in the short run, it does.
But violence has its costs. When we employ violence against others it results in more violence, usually of a greater kind, as Refn shows. Garrett goes on to say,
If there is a positive Jesus-y message from the film, it clearly cannot be about the efficacy of violence. As Martin Luther King preached in Strength to Love, ‘Hate multiplies hate, violence multiplies violence, and toughness multiplies toughness in a descending spiral of destruction.’ A stage littered with bodies is always the sign that we are watching a tragedy.
Driver wears an iconic satin bomber jacket thoughout, one that bears a scorpion on the back. This jacket provides a two-fold metaphor. What started as white and shiny becomes splattered with blood after one killing. Metaphorically, the cost of violence is displayed on his back. Figuratively, this points us back to the words of Isaiah (1:18): ““Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool.” We all wear dirty robes, and we cannot clean them ourselves. Driver does not clean his jacket once stained. Yet there is one in life whose clothing is unstained. The Old Testament prophet Daniel pointed out, “As I looked, ‘thrones were set in place, and the Ancient of Days took his seat. His clothing was as white as snow’ .” (Dan. 7:9) This one is Jesus. He is a true Messiah, and he offers to cleanse us. Another prophet beautifully painted this picture, “Take off his filthy clothes.” Then he said to Joshua, “See, I have taken away your sin, and I will put fine garments on you.” (Zech. 3:4)

The second metaphor stems from a story Driver relates in a phone conversation referring to “the scorpion and the toad” tale. In the story, the toad carries the scorpion across the river. But the scorpion stings the toad and both drown. When asked why by the toad, the scorpion replied that “it’s my nature”. Driver is the scorpion. It is his nature to kill. It is his nature to be alone, disengaged. But in reality, our true nature is found only in Jesus, where he gives us a new nature (2 Cor. 5:17), one that resembles what God originally intended for humanity from the beginning. Our broken and corrupt nature we are born with pulls us to sin and self, leading to crime. But unlike the scorpion or Driver, we can change; we can be changed if we turn to Jesus.

This brings us back to the theme of moral ambiguity and Driver’s initial quotation. Driver had his own moral code. He used it to control, himself and others. He left no margin for error. He carried no guns and was determined not to shoot anyone. These morals seemed upright, until you see that they don’t prevent him from carrying out crime. Moreover, he is willing to stomp or stab someone to death but won’t shoot them. There is a paradox; there is ambiguity. His morals were relative, self-determined, baseless. A proverb says, “There is a way that appears to be right, but in the end it leads to death” (Prov. 14:12). Man-made morals are like this. They seem right, but they are ultimately wrong, deadly wrong. In contrast, moral perspicuity comes from centering a life on God, following Jesus. He laid out his ethic in the classic Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5-8), but it can be summarized succinctly, as he does in his upper room discourse (Jn. 13-17): “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another” (Jn. 13:34).

Drive is sleek yet superficial. Ultimately, it is as empty as its protagonist. It spills gallons of blood leaving a dozen or so dead bodies on its path, but offers no solutions, just the reminder of the graphic cost of violence. It’s not for the faint of heart.

Copyright©2012, Martin Baggs

Tuesday, January 24, 2012

CT's Top 10 Most Redeeming Movies of 2011

"Christianity Today" just released their list of "The 10 Most Redeeming Films of 2011." At the top of their list is a contemplative yet moving French film set in a monastery: Of Gods and Men. It's worth checking out these. Their "Critic's Choice Films" follow later this week.

Sunday, January 22, 2012

Attack the Block -- hoods, heroes and neighbors








Director: Joe Cornish, 2011. (R) 

British cinema saw the emergence of B-movie horror films with the Hammer studio in the 1950s. Here, writer-director Cornish’s debut film echoes that genre. The low-budget Attack on the Block has a B-movie horror feel with some very dark British humor thrown in. And the accents are thick and dark, so may be a little difficult for non-Brits.

The movie opens with Sam (Jodie Whittaker), a young nurse, walking home through the streets of inner city South London. Confronted by a gang of young teenage hoodlums, she is mugged at knife-point. Before they can do anything more than steal her purse and ring, a meteor crashes through the roof of the car next to her. But this is no meteor.

Cornish himself was mugged in South London in a similar fashion. Recognizing that his assailants were as scared as he was, he began researching young thugs and was inspired to make this film.

As Sam flees to freedom, the gang, led by Moses (John Boyega) investigate and discover a creature from outer space. Chasing it, Moses kills it and carries the carcass back to his council estate flat. (A council flat is apartment housing in the projects, a low-class ghetto permeated with crime and violence.)

What this bicycle-riding and knife-wielding gang don’t realize is that other monsters will come after them. And they do. Since it is Guy Fawke’s night (England’s answer to Fourth of July), the fireworks are exploding and no one notices these creatures fireballing (and furballing) down ot earth.

After the mugging, Moses’ and Sam cross paths again, first in a police van and then after he rescues her from attack by the creature, his gang find their way to her apartment. She lives in the same project as they do. She is their neighbor. Like it or not, she finds herself cast in with the gang in a live or die effort to defeat this enemy. The hoods have become the heroes in this tale.

Cornish uses mostly unknown actors here. The two leads fare well. Whittaker is credible and does fine work as the nurse. But it is Boyega who stands out. Looking like a young Denzel Washington, he carries himself with an energy and magnetism that draws those around to him. He is a natural and is sure to go on to more and better work. And Nick Frost (Hot Fuzz, Paul) shows up as a stoner, Ron, who minds the weed room for the rapper-gangster Hi-Hatz, who “owns the block”. Ron is a compilation of the roles Frost has played before, so there is no stretch here, but he imparts much of the humor.

The film explores several themes and offers some social commentary. The first focuses on racial disenfranchisement. The gang is mostly black. Their options are limited and they are drifting into petty crime, with just a step from serious drug activity. Their lack of hope and potential leads them to what they see as their only hope. Hi-Hatz, the gangster, is their hero. Rich and bejeweled, they clamour to be in his gang while the younger kids want to join Moses’ gang. The gang offers them the only way up, if not out. Clearly, there is some racial stereotyping going on but this includes some truth.

A second theme looks at the class barriers and territorialism. The black gang saw Sam as a white nurse, one of the enemy, a class apart. From their perspective, she was fair game. But when they discovered she was one of them, living in the same projects they counted her as one of their own. Moreover, once the monsters attacked the block, everyone living in the apartment building was at risk and class and racial barriers meant less. Species barriers meant more.

Race and class set man against man. Hatred is fueled by these divisions. But they are false barriers. In reality, all men, white or black, rich or poor, have the same fundamental dignity and rights. We are all made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26). We are all considered the same when we come to union with Jesus Christ. Paul says in Galatians 3:28: “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”.

The final theme is that of courage and heroism. Moses and his friends were viewed as juvenile delinquents by most, including Sam. But given the opportunity, they emerged as heroes, protecting themselves and others, even being willing to sacrifice their lives to save those in their block. We all harbor that potential, to be heroes. We may not get the chance to realize it but it is there. How we react and respond to adversity will prove our mettle. Will we emerge as a hero or a coward?

Despite the simplicity of the aliens and of the plot, Cornish does enough to maintain the suspense and keep us watching. And he reminds us of the need to watch out for our neighbors!

Copyright©2012, Martin Baggs

Thursday, January 19, 2012

Jan Movie Group: Drive; Sat 1/21/12, 4:50pm at Academy Theater

We have firmed up the details for the movie group outing this Saturday. Here they are:

  • Movie: Drive (R)  
  • Place: Academy Theater (which is at 7818 SE Stark Street)
  • Date: Saturday 1/21/12
  • Time: film shows at 4:50pm; meet in lobby at 4:30pm
  • Coffee and Discussion: Bi-partisan Cafe after the film (which is at 7901 SE Stark Street)
Note there is no parking lot, so you have to find off-street parking, like on SE 78th or SE 77th. However, the cafe is right opposite the theater, so once parked you won't need to move the car.

This low-budget crime thriller, starring Ryan Gosling as a getaway driver, has been listed in numerous top 10 films of 2011 lists, and earned Albert Brooks the Golden Globe for best supporting actor.

Hope to see you on Saturday for this low-budget outing.

Remember: "There are no clean getaways!"