Reply to Topic
My Review:
It is both to Nicolas Winding Refn’s advantage and disadvantage that Drive became the unexpected hit that it did. In under two hours, Refn created a huge base of instantly and infinitely praising fans. For this reason, his newest feature, Only God Forgives will probably make its money back. Most fans seem to be under the impression that while the film has received a good number of horrendous (and perhaps unfair) reviews, they aren’t to be trusted and want to see his so called downfall for themselves. It also puts an almost unfair pressure on Refn to perform not only at the same level, but in the same style and tone. So when a clear evolution of Refn’s form pushes the ultraviolent and ultrasilent bursts from Drive to new levels, fans can’t seem to comprehend, nor enjoy the change. This isn’t to say that Only God Forgives is a good film (because it isn’t), nor does it mean that Refn’s advancing aesthetic is what’s wrong with the film (it rides in alternating engaging and alienating waves), but simply that (from what I’ve seen) most of the reviews and fan criticism hasn’t been able to correctly identify the issues present, and have been rather unfair to the film.
What first should be noted isn’t what most people seem to gravitate to. It’s not the silence of Gosling’s character, nor is it the brutal and shock worthy violence that strangely varies in intensity from Korean sado-masochist tendencies to American sexualized violence. The first thing we really notice is the lighting. Very infrequently does the color design miss. The demonizing red controls the screen for the majority, with some golden yellows plashing across faces usually, and a hint of blue peeking through the frame (think of the night club in 25th Hour but for the majority of the film). The technical achievement of the color shouldn’t go unnoticed in light of the rest of the film’s unevenness. This constant stylized lighting make any normal lighting make you feel naked and uncertain, but unfortunately, this is about the best the film has to offer to the rest of cinema. It’s obvious from the start that Refn was incredibly deliberate in the film’s craft, and thus it may be why he has lost so much credibility since the film’s release. Refn stands behind his film and therefore loses any reputation he instantly built with Drive. He stand behind every porn-like shot of a desiring mother and son, every (unaware to Refn though) weak silence, and every shot of Vithaya Pansringarm, menacing or not.
image
Refn’s plot is brief. A drug dealer (though seemingly of weak prowess) who’s partner and brother is killed. This triggers the arrival of his mother and a series of downward spiraling revenge fulfillment on both sides, the other side being Pansringarm’s cop. Nobody is really heroic, and everyone is brutal. The emphasis (as it was in Drive)is obviously on the storytelling, rather than the story. It’s told in exposition and close-ups (or as I say, cinematic exposition) with many periods of silence and tension in between. The implication from most reviews is that Gosling has sort of resumed playing the character from Drive, but this is at least a mild farce in the face of his more devious actions, and is no longer the hero he was in the previous films (as the music so told). The problem with Gosling’s character isn’t his silence, but rather the uneven and unsure degree of characterization. Sean Penn performed with little dialogue and also little range in Terrence Malick’s The Tree of Life, but his performance came off poignant and devastating. That performance was built up, however, on the look of Penn’s face. The clear signs of weathering, a touch of success, and his ice cold detachment. Gosling’s character in Drive was equally silent, but his character works there in leading the viewer to assume a certain personality based on his film history with bare minimum characterization, basically enough for the plot to work. The result was a classic, but still affecting subversion as his behavior became increasingly chaotic. Here, Gosling’s character is given detail, though none of it through his acting. We’re told he’s killed his father, seen his sexual desires, and observed his mother/son dynamic, but all of Refn’s reaction shots are blank stars. His face is stiff and unfeeling, even when bubbled up from bruising.
Being a second collaboration with Refn doesn’t aid him either in becoming a character, but provides the film’s highest mark, and possibly loudest laugh. When Gosling’s Julian asks Pansringarm’s cop to fight, they prepare thoroughly as the camera cuts between center staged medium shots as they seem to switch places. All of this tension breaks when Julian ends up being an awful fighter, and getting brutally defeated. It’s the one point where Refn seems to be self-consciously film making, unfortunately it comes in one of the films climaxes, and unfolds so much needed tension with laughter, though maybe because I’m sick and happy to see Gosling fail (but Refn might now that).
One of Refn’s tricks is to twist the color for the characters. Julian’s brother’s shirt is blood red right before he rapes and kills a woman. The cop is almost entirely corrupt except for a peak of white at the top (a light fitting characterization). The trick is made explicit in a scene with Gosling switching between realities and simultaneously swapping black and white shirts before eventually settling for a whole mess of everything: a white shirt and black vest covered in blood. Therefore we might expect Gosling’s character to be the most changed throughout the film, though his actions are less ambiguous and more obvious progression, with the ambiguity kept with his motives which may or may not be changed. Thus this technique really falls flat and adds little depth to the film.
The cop is given the role of the unstoppable force like Anton Chigurh with a sword. Filmed, of course, from an almost constant low angle. This is possibly the film’s most well etched character, and he might even be the hero. He does nothing ethically wrong, unlike Julian, whose hero’s journey was quite literally cut short before he could redeem himself, but has a more vigilante sense of the law, fitting for the underworld portrayed. All of the cop’s building terror is accidentally subverted by a mid-film chase in which certain shots that are more still and objective reveal him as a limping old man. Certainly not on purpose as the way the scene is edited makes him look alternatively normal and bent out of shape.
Refn seems to be taking many direct hits from critics. They all seem to morally condemn him for purposefully going for shock cinema and are beginning to view him like his fellow Dane, Lars von Trier. It doesn’t seem to me like Refn has committed any atrocities. What truly immoral or offensive material could they be talking about? The very porn-like Oedipal tale? The white rule in Bangkok? The more steady stream of violence as opposed to Drive outbursts? Or is it more that these critics are more offended by Refn’s willingness to bore or maybe alienate the audience? The film feels more self-contained than that. It doesn’t attempt to make any kind of current comment on its topics, any theme you might find is more existential than that. I have not been offended by Refn, but I feel that Only God Forgives lacks any cinematic intuition. It’s a very deliberate creation that Refn wouldn’t want do any differently, but he wasn’t able to read his film and was unable to notice any of its flaws. It’s an earnest but blind effort that ultimately falls flat, but not for it’s obvious and welcome stylistic evolution, but from it’s lack of awareness.
It is both to Nicolas Winding Refn’s advantage and disadvantage that Drive became the unexpected hit that it did. In under two hours, Refn created a huge base of instantly and infinitely praising fans. For this reason, his newest feature, Only God Forgives will probably make its money back. Most fans seem to be under the impression that while the film has received a good number of horrendous (and perhaps unfair) reviews, they aren’t to be trusted and want to see his so called downfall for themselves. It also puts an almost unfair pressure on Refn to perform not only at the same level, but in the same style and tone. So when a clear evolution of Refn’s form pushes the ultraviolent and ultrasilent bursts from Drive to new levels, fans can’t seem to comprehend, nor enjoy the change. This isn’t to say that Only God Forgives is a good film (because it isn’t), nor does it mean that Refn’s advancing aesthetic is what’s wrong with the film (it rides in alternating engaging and alienating waves), but simply that (from what I’ve seen) most of the reviews and fan criticism hasn’t been able to correctly identify the issues present, and have been rather unfair to the film.
What first should be noted isn’t what most people seem to gravitate to. It’s not the silence of Gosling’s character, nor is it the brutal and shock worthy violence that strangely varies in intensity from Korean sado-masochist tendencies to American sexualized violence. The first thing we really notice is the lighting. Very infrequently does the color design miss. The demonizing red controls the screen for the majority, with some golden yellows plashing across faces usually, and a hint of blue peeking through the frame (think of the night club in 25th Hour but for the majority of the film). The technical achievement of the color shouldn’t go unnoticed in light of the rest of the film’s unevenness. This constant stylized lighting make any normal lighting make you feel naked and uncertain, but unfortunately, this is about the best the film has to offer to the rest of cinema. It’s obvious from the start that Refn was incredibly deliberate in the film’s craft, and thus it may be why he has lost so much credibility since the film’s release. Refn stands behind his film and therefore loses any reputation he instantly built with Drive. He stand behind every porn-like shot of a desiring mother and son, every (unaware to Refn though) weak silence, and every shot of Vithaya Pansringarm, menacing or not.
image
Refn’s plot is brief. A drug dealer (though seemingly of weak prowess) who’s partner and brother is killed. This triggers the arrival of his mother and a series of downward spiraling revenge fulfillment on both sides, the other side being Pansringarm’s cop. Nobody is really heroic, and everyone is brutal. The emphasis (as it was in Drive)is obviously on the storytelling, rather than the story. It’s told in exposition and close-ups (or as I say, cinematic exposition) with many periods of silence and tension in between. The implication from most reviews is that Gosling has sort of resumed playing the character from Drive, but this is at least a mild farce in the face of his more devious actions, and is no longer the hero he was in the previous films (as the music so told). The problem with Gosling’s character isn’t his silence, but rather the uneven and unsure degree of characterization. Sean Penn performed with little dialogue and also little range in Terrence Malick’s The Tree of Life, but his performance came off poignant and devastating. That performance was built up, however, on the look of Penn’s face. The clear signs of weathering, a touch of success, and his ice cold detachment. Gosling’s character in Drive was equally silent, but his character works there in leading the viewer to assume a certain personality based on his film history with bare minimum characterization, basically enough for the plot to work. The result was a classic, but still affecting subversion as his behavior became increasingly chaotic. Here, Gosling’s character is given detail, though none of it through his acting. We’re told he’s killed his father, seen his sexual desires, and observed his mother/son dynamic, but all of Refn’s reaction shots are blank stars. His face is stiff and unfeeling, even when bubbled up from bruising.
Being a second collaboration with Refn doesn’t aid him either in becoming a character, but provides the film’s highest mark, and possibly loudest laugh. When Gosling’s Julian asks Pansringarm’s cop to fight, they prepare thoroughly as the camera cuts between center staged medium shots as they seem to switch places. All of this tension breaks when Julian ends up being an awful fighter, and getting brutally defeated. It’s the one point where Refn seems to be self-consciously film making, unfortunately it comes in one of the films climaxes, and unfolds so much needed tension with laughter, though maybe because I’m sick and happy to see Gosling fail (but Refn might now that).
One of Refn’s tricks is to twist the color for the characters. Julian’s brother’s shirt is blood red right before he rapes and kills a woman. The cop is almost entirely corrupt except for a peak of white at the top (a light fitting characterization). The trick is made explicit in a scene with Gosling switching between realities and simultaneously swapping black and white shirts before eventually settling for a whole mess of everything: a white shirt and black vest covered in blood. Therefore we might expect Gosling’s character to be the most changed throughout the film, though his actions are less ambiguous and more obvious progression, with the ambiguity kept with his motives which may or may not be changed. Thus this technique really falls flat and adds little depth to the film.
The cop is given the role of the unstoppable force like Anton Chigurh with a sword. Filmed, of course, from an almost constant low angle. This is possibly the film’s most well etched character, and he might even be the hero. He does nothing ethically wrong, unlike Julian, whose hero’s journey was quite literally cut short before he could redeem himself, but has a more vigilante sense of the law, fitting for the underworld portrayed. All of the cop’s building terror is accidentally subverted by a mid-film chase in which certain shots that are more still and objective reveal him as a limping old man. Certainly not on purpose as the way the scene is edited makes him look alternatively normal and bent out of shape.
Refn seems to be taking many direct hits from critics. They all seem to morally condemn him for purposefully going for shock cinema and are beginning to view him like his fellow Dane, Lars von Trier. It doesn’t seem to me like Refn has committed any atrocities. What truly immoral or offensive material could they be talking about? The very porn-like Oedipal tale? The white rule in Bangkok? The more steady stream of violence as opposed to Drive outbursts? Or is it more that these critics are more offended by Refn’s willingness to bore or maybe alienate the audience? The film feels more self-contained than that. It doesn’t attempt to make any kind of current comment on its topics, any theme you might find is more existential than that. I have not been offended by Refn, but I feel that Only God Forgives lacks any cinematic intuition. It’s a very deliberate creation that Refn wouldn’t want do any differently, but he wasn’t able to read his film and was unable to notice any of its flaws. It’s an earnest but blind effort that ultimately falls flat, but not for it’s obvious and welcome stylistic evolution, but from it’s lack of awareness.
__________________
Mubi
Mubi
