Ryan Gosling

Why Ryan Gosling?


Because I saw "Drive" and "The Notebook" recently. Those are two of the past three films I've seen, and being that I've probably averaged two movie viewings a month the past year,  that common denominator seems worth noting. I haven't written in this thing in almost a year, and I love Chi Thu's movie reviews, so I wanted to join in the ring.


I am not in the American pop-cultural loop anymore, but I have a feeling that him being in 66% of the films I've seen recently isn't too shocking. He seems to be everywhere. He would have been in 75% of the films I've seen this month had it not been for Douglas's suggestion to skip "The Ides of March". He certainly is everywhere. He has his own actor section at Victory CD/ DVD on Hang Bac street here in town. It's fitting, his ubiquity. He's got the face of the American-everyman; or everyboy. He looks like that slightly racist kid down the street who was always talking about how much Hamburger Helper he ate and whom you hoped didn't come down your end of the block, asking to join your football game. 


"Half-Nelson" was the first Ryan Gosling film I've seen. He was fantastic in it, and yet, he couldn't shake off his Hamburger Helper-ness. I have this policy where I do not give any actor or actress credit for their chops if the role they made their big splash in was that of a drug addict. It's not hard to act the drug addict, because 
1) they might actually be drug addicts during the time of filming 
2) I act like a drug addict every single morning of my life for the first hour after the alarm wakes me up. 
"The Notebook" was popular, but I don't think he actually achieved special notoriety for his performance, so I think it's fair to say "Half-Nelson" was his coming-out party. Some would say it was "The Believer", but playing a Nazi or a neo-Nazi is commensurate to the drug addict, so my point remains the same - young man, can you really act? Is the emperor actually naked if there's not dollops of heroin or a swastika adorning his 
robe?*** Boy, I said, can you act? Boy?!


***I'm fully aware this analogy/reference makes no sense, but in a slightly inaccurate and lazy way, yes, it does.



"Drive"


I know this film got very positive reviews upon its release, yet I don't know the details of what the critical body as a whole found appealing. Here's what I thought. 


a. It's a director's film. What Nicolas Winding Refn (what a name) saw in the screenplay I will never know, but give a TV-movie director this script and you'll get a TV-movie. Two seconds of watching Refn's interpretation, and we know it's not a TV-movie. I've seen about 40 minutes of his previous film "Bronson" and other than Tom Hardy's performance, the film didn't make too much of an impression on Refn's behalf. However, "Drive" is 100% his movie. The acting is good, yet you get the impression that they too had been cast under the directorial spell of Refn. Not a single element of this film felt left up to chance. I don't normally gravitate towards films with that brand of strict control, but "Drive" worked.


b. I expected more driving than actually appeared in the film.


c. It's a black comedy, right?


d. I know for a fact that Refn will one day soon make a film that will feel unbearably over-directed. "Drive" is just about unbearably over-directed, but I think it needed to be. It would be far too simple were it not. And it also gave the film that oddball slant, which somehow lends itself to apparent universal appeal. Examples:


I. I want to know WHY he chose that font for the opening credits. Hipster irony? An homage to...what exactly? Pure anachronism for the sake of anachronism (which is hipster irony, actually)? Pink? Maybe it's a connection to the.....

Font?

II. ...... jarring pop songs peppering the film that feel utterly strange. Yet worked. I told Zoe if a viewer had told me that the songs Refn chose flat out ruined the film for them, could you really argue with that person? It clashes rather violently with a typical film of this bent.  As with many other directorial flourishes in the film, I honestly do believe that Refn is being completely sincere with his song choices. That these songs were the only ones he could ever consider to have in the film when the pieces were falling to place in pre-production. I don't find the film strange in a self-conscious way. It's sincerely goofy; oddball; miscreant.


III. The casting choices fall in the same vein as the music and opening credits. Many, many actors could play these roles, but to see Albert Brooks, Ron Perleman, Carey Mulligan, and Christina Hendricks in a small, inane, and fundamentally silly crime film straightened my posture a little bit more than if they weren't in it. Offbeat casting choices are nothing new in stylized crime movies, but the apparent lack of irony in the performances, again, gave the film a more sincere quality that it sorely needed for gravitas.


e. The scene where Gosling confronts Cranston after Gosling smashes the hitman's face in (if you haven't seen the film, I didn't ruin anything. People will die, graphically) sounded just like the scene I liked in "The Notebook". As in, Gosling's character in "Drive" sounded just like Gosling's character in "The Notebook". 


f.  I was eating chicken fajitas during "Drive". Somewhat fitting, as the film was set in California and Mulligan's husband and son were Mexican. It gave the film a more authentic feel.


g. The violence - ultimately, it detracts from the film. It got to a point of childishness. The intensity/thrill/shock/excitement/ of the initial thunderbolts of violence were powerful, yes. It then got to a point where it was expected. Subsequently, it then felt as if the director was relying on the violence as a crutch, and not other more subtle ways he had already exhibited skill at executing. It's like the child who tells you a joke you find unexpectedly funny. Then the kid tells it to you eight other times in the span of an hour and you want the kid to just scram.


h. Case in point - the scene where Ron Perleman dies is something to behold. It's a triumph that didn't need the violent effects. Alternately hilarious, dark, beautiful, unique, troubling, sublime, emotional, and detached. Can it be all of that? Those were the first words that came out of my mouth and I'm not changing it.




i. How is Gosling in it? He's good. Maybe not great, but I cannot see any actor being great in this film. It's Refn's film. It's a great career decision for him, to take on a role like this. The scene after he hammer's the bald guy's hand and pins him down in the strip club is an achievement for the cinematographer, the director, the set designer, and Gosling. He does this withering, psychotic, but all-the-time very downplayed thing as he gives mortal warning to the man being pinned. Gosling actually becomes something to be feared. That's good acting.


j. Mulligan is miscast, but you can't have dimples like that and be expected to turn down the thousands of roles surely being hurled at you daily. You're allowed to be off now and then.


I found the film genuinely strange and beautiful. It does justice to that side of Los Angeles.

Of course, his skull tasted like my onions and beans.

"The Notebook"



Zoe left me a copy of "The Notebook" on DVD for the week of Valentine's Day. She left me a gift  bag with a surprise inside for each and every week in which we would be apart from each other (if that gesture doesn't make your heart melt, your heart is stone. But I digress). I watched "The Notebook" last Saturday night while eating some muesli. I can still taste the whole grains, the cranberry raisins, and the lightly sugared soy milk imbued with the salt of my tears. I don't remember when I cried, but I did. It's a good film. Actually, I think it's a great film. I cannot say the name 'Nicholas Sparks' aloud in public without the mortal fear of somebody laughing at me, so I don't know really know what this film did right. I'll try to sort it out here:


a. The two leads are great actors. I think Rachel McAdams is easily one of the most versatile actresses going, and she was good in this (Gosling seems to have a nose for choosing good female costars). But I actually thought Gosling was better. I think the movie is more his character's (Noah?) than her's. Is that the general concensus? Maybe it's because I'm a boy, but I'm feeling his pain, man! Who among us has not wanted to outrun his limited familial finances by building a mansion, from scratch, with nothing but his own two hands in order to one day finish it in time to have the local newspaper write a feature on it that will inevitably coincide with the wedding announcement of his long lost love in order to effectively plant that seed in his desired one's head that maybe, maybe my wealthy fiance now, though equally kind-hearted, even more handsome, and coming from old-money, though we are a near perfect match, maybe that boy I had in the past, who can seemingly conjure up this mansion with nothing but the power of his nostalgia for having almost de-virginized me in the foyer-maybe this boy is better suited for me? Men can be swept away by this type of melodrama, too. And it works because Gosling has this particular strength about him that defies the inherent hokiness of such a scenario.


b. I thought the sex scene in that foyer was great. I liked the honesty. When McAdams (Allie? Alley?) asks "What are you thinking now?". It's a very wise scene. A film like this needs that kind of levity to make it work. Again, it's not so much the writing that carries it; it's the acting. (Was it actually a sex-scene or almost a sex-scene? As much as I like the film, I probably won't be watching it again any time soon. Did they have sex or not?)


c. I like how they talk in this film. The scene towards the end when Gosling is yelling at McAdams for being on the fence between him and Cyclops, from what I remember, Gosling repeats a few of his words. This is a pivotal scene, but directorially, it wasn't treated overtly in that way. When I am angry, I repeat things when I talk. I cannot think straight. Gosling was angry, and the wording felt very unpolished and fitting for that scene. The rest of the film did not feel like that one scene, as it shouldn't. The film is a big sweeping baroque romance with a WWII sequence (zzzz) for heaven's sake. But that one scene stood out by letting the raw emotions play out. It stood out for its understatement. I didn't expect that from a film like this.


d. If you look at the major dynamics of the film, I don't know how anyone could really even call this a girl movie. The guys are the ones in pain, not the girl. McAdams' predicament isn't really one that most women are likely to relate to. Sure, they might be torn between two men, but not from circumstances like the one in the film. She's got two near perfect relationships to grapple with, and the only reason she had the luxury/misery of having to sort out such a mess  is because McAdams was too lazy to go to the mailbox just one day out of those 365 days. In the age of email or text messaging, Joan Allen would have zero power on the first romance. This film came out in 2004, so women of today, you have no good reason to relate to any of McAdams' woes. 


The men in the film, on the other hand, have a much more relatable brand of pain. They simply long for better communication with the woman. Today, yes, Gosling's emails would reach McAdams, but I prefer not to take those undeliverable letters so literally and just see it as the eventual hurdle Gosling would have to encounter anyway. Likely, McAdams would meet Cyclops. That tug of war would be played out in some way shape or form regardless. McAdams would be confronted with her same set of questions. Gosling would be confronted with his fiscal limits. Cyclops would still be left in that painful no-man's land of asking his girlfriend on the telephone 'if everything is okay', knowing it's not, but still having her say 'sure sure, it's all fine.' I thought that was a great scene for that character and the movie. The men's pain feels genuine to me. Certainly, it's a pain women can feel as well, yet it is worth noting that it is viewed through the lens of the man rather than the woman.

Currently being played.

e. as further proof that McAdams's performance was stellar, as I have highlighted in point 'd', she could easily be that irritating woman-who-can't-decide-shit character, yet she never lapses into that.


f. that rowboat scene with the ducks is beautiful. 

Flip those ducks upside down and you'll find batteries.

g. I really can't say I cared much for the James Garner/Gena Rowlands scenes. They certainly don't detract from the film, but the deathbed scene at the end felt anticlimactic . They may have been talking throughout the film, but they already felt dead. When they actually died, it looked like a nap.
I think it's nice that the present day scenes lend more of a fairy-tale feel to their younger scenes, which I think is important in the film's credibility. However, there's this certain staleness to the present day geriatric scenes that feel momentum killing. It does make the film feel less 'slick', which the film needs. Still, I found the scenes awkward and clumsy. 


h. Why did I write point 'g'? This was supposed to be concerning why the film was good. Which it was. Good for you, Gosling, good for you. Muesli hasn't tasted the same since.