Art, No Refunds

Do yourself a favor, save your $12.50 and stay away from this week’s new movie, “Drive”. IMDB rated it 8.8 out of 10 so I didn’t bother to read the NY Times review that I now know was lukewarm. Mistake. In brief: Ryan Gosling plays a getaway car driver who falls for a girl, does a job for her ex-con husband that goes sour, not only killing the ex-con, but leaving Gosling with a big bag of mob money that gets him a knife in the gut. End of movie, but good fodder for today’s blog.

The problem with this movie and many others like it is that some directors just don’t know the difference between art and entertainment. Art is something that gives you a strong, usually pleasurable reaction. It can be beautiful or awe inspiring. It is of significance, not just ordinary. Entertainment, by distinction, passes the time. It keeps your interest. It can amuse or sadden, but if it is boring or offensive you walk out and that’s where the entertainment ends.

Some examples: Auguste Rodin’s marble sculpture of Danaid is a work of art. It is beautiful in subject, form and material. It attracts the attention of thousands of visitors daily in Paris’ Rodin Museum. The visitors appreciate the beauty then walk by to see the next masterpiece. I guarantee you that if that creamy white form came to life and lifted her hair from the cool marble stream displaying her nubile figure, no one would walk away. They would truly be entertained.

Many think that winemaking is an art and that a fine wine can be a work of art. I’m not sure I agree, but they find pleasure in swirling their wine in a crystal goblet and watching the rivulets of liquid stream down the glass. They draw the scent into their noses, close their eyes and imagine I’m not sure what. Finally they take a sip and draw it over their palates. If it’s over $20 a bottle I’m willing to call it art. On the other hand, give me 2 or more glasses of the stuff, and we’ll both be entertained.

So where did “Drive” go wrong? I blame it on movie school. “Drive” had many scenes where long silences, montages and close-ups substituted for meaningful dialogue. It’s hard to have two actors develop a relationship on screen by talking to each other. It’s easier to show a soulful look and hope the audience buys it when they embrace. Overly long face shots are okay if it’s Ingrid Bergman in “Casablanca”, but Ryan Gosling with his close set eyes and 38 regular body made me wonder if I had time to go out and pee. Even Brad Pitt, who does have the goods, knew that his face alone wouldn’t cut it. In his breakout movie, “Thelma and Louise”, he knew enough to take off his shirt. Tom Cruise took his pants off in “Risky Business” and his shirt off in “Top Gun”. There’s no way plain faced Jamie Lee Curtis would ever have gotten to show off her comic brilliance in “A Fish Called Wanda” if she didn’t show off her large boobs first in “Trading Places”. Long before “Gypsy” entertainers knew that “you gotta have a gimmick”.

“Drive” was also terribly miscast. The movie’s strong silent hero was a wimpy Canadian kid whose mother took him out of public school to be homeschooled because the other kids bullied him. No stubby facial hair or imitation Stallone voice could ever make him Rambo. Even worse was the casting of Albert Brooks as the local mob villain who slashes one guy and then sticks a jeweled blade into Gosling’s gut. Brooks is a standup comic. He was the sweat soaked loser in “Broadcast News”. A proper villain would have been someone in the mold of Donald Sutherland who both wielded and embodied the perfect stiletto in “Eye of the Needle”. That director, Richard Marquand, succeeded in artsifying his film with brilliant phallic imagery, both impotent and virile, that turned a very entertaining film into one that you can watch again and enjoy even more. No, you won’t get me to say it is a work of art!

Finally, the worst film of the year…I lasted 20 minutes, the last 10 with my eyes closed. You don’t have to trust me, just read the disclaimer below, posted by Stamford’s Avon theater.

Dear Patrons,

In response to some customer feedback and a polarized audience response to last weekend, we would like to take time to remind patrons that THE TREE OF LIFE is a uniquely visionary and deeply philosophical film from an auteur director. It does not follow a traditional, narrative approach to storytelling. We encourage patrons to read up on the film before choosing to see it, and for those electing to attend, please go in with an open mind and know that the Avon has a NO REFUND policy once you have purchased a ticket to see one of our films. The Avon stands behind this ambitious work of art and other challenging films, which define us as a true art house cinema, and we hope you will expand your horizons with us.

Thank you.

Now that’s entertainment.