DRIVE is one of the best films of the year

      Ryan Gosling portrays the quiet, yet surprisingly violent lone-wolf. He doesn’t talk much; he doesn’t need to. He only does what’s necessary. He works for everybody, but at the same time, he works for no one. He’s never attached or committed to one thing long enough to put himself in grave danger. He drives, that’s what he does, and he’s good. Damn good.
      Drive contains a super-cool, low-key rhythm. The film’s visual style is very controlled. Here is a director who understands the meaning of gritty suspense. Sometimes, less is more. Drive contains a plotline that could fit any action-type crime thriller, but the overall scintillating and stylish film grammar heightens the genre-like picture to a new and improved level. Drive never attempts to bombard the viewers with an operatic score, loud sound effects, and frantic editing. Hollywood action filmmakers need to take a few tips from director Nicolas Winding Refn.
      Drive opens with a heist, in which Gosling is the getaway driver. The point-of-view never leaves the driver. In a subtle movement of taunt suspense, we watch him wait in silence as his associates run out with the loot. He’s cool, calm and collected, but underneath, we sense this dark rage about him. The absence of sound and the limited perspective increases the intrigue. I think that most Hollywood action directors, for example, Michael Bay (Bad Boys, Transformers), would underestimate the audience, and attack their senses with never-ending police chases, helicopters, and an overwhelming score. This is no Bad Boys (1995). Drive is mainstream mixed with an artsy, European-like flavor. The film is no quick fix, either. The pacing, camerawork, and editing are nicely composited, exuding a near-perfect style, complementing an entertaining story and highly engaging protagonist.
      The story is essentially about the dark unfolding of a merciless character—a la Travis Bickle in Taxi Driver(1976). His portrayal in the beginning is quiet, but the brooding sense of a gasping explosion always lingers in the air. The stuntman driver gets mixed up in a botched-heist, involving stolen mob money. He’s forced in the job by his unintentional attraction for his neighbor, Irene, played by the talented, Carey Mulligan. The chemistry between the two leads is felt more by their body language than the dialogue. Furthermore, I love how scenes of sheer-cool romance are undercut by hardcore violence. Mulligan plays as a mother, taking care of her only child while her husband finishes his prison term. You can tell she’s smitten by Gosling, but both characters have a mutual respect for the conditions of their lives. Neither one decides to intrude, complicating matters, but more importantly, enjoy what they have. Gosling’s intentions are kind and loyal, but once you cross the line, there is no forgiving.
     There were certain instances and details in the film that drew my attention. In one scene, Carey Mulligan is preparing for her date with Ryan Gosling, and before the scene ends, we hear the phone ring in the background. The plot moves into the next scene, where the two leads discuss a crucial phone call in the film. A less intelligent director would probably think that the audience needs to see a shot of Irene picking up the phone, or an excerpt from the actual conversation. I love how sound, alone, can move the story forward, without a whole bunch of explanation in the dialogue. Subtlety and reasoning over the smallest details can make a world of difference. It’s important to question every scene and ask, “Do we need a shot of this, or is it superfluous?”
      Another great moment that I admired is a two shot scene in the apartment between Mulligan and Gosling. The director keeps Mulligan in the light, but we only view Gosling’s reflection in a mirror, in which a shadow covers his face. The artful composition of this shot cleverly expresses the dark side of his human nature.
       My favorite detail in Drive was Ryan Gosling’s costume. In almost every scene he’s dressed in tight jeans that accentuate his long frame, and his signature stuntman driving jacket that has a scorpion etched on his backside. As the story unfolds and our dark hero’s violent tendencies come to the centerfold, his hip, retro-jacket becomes covered in more blood. However, he never takes it off; even when he meets with gangster Albert Brooks in a public restaurant. The driving jacket symbolizes what he’s best at. Sometimes, subtle and idiosyncratic details in the costume can say more about a character than their behaviors. It brings a sort of mythological dimension to the protagonist.
      I love how director Nicolas Winding Refn frames every shot in the film. It’s done with clear precision and artistry. The use of slow-motion effects, combined with the laidback tempo of the electronic soundtrack pays homage to great stylistic directors, such as Sam Peckinpah (The Wild Bunch, Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia) and Sergio Leone (The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly). A tight script, enigmatic protagonist, and a strong visual style transcend the film out of the cycle of clichéd, crime pictures. As violent as Drive is, the plot, character development, and visual energy wins the final race.


**** (out of four stars)

Yale's interview with film critic, Philip Wuntch

        One rainy day I went to a movie with a friend. It’s not like I was performing cartwheels over seeing the Nanny Diaries (2007), but I thought, I might be surprised. He loved it, I hated it. No surprise. I defended my opinion to the best of my expertise. Afterward, he looked at me, and said, “If you didn’t like the movie, then why did you see it?”
       He didn’t understand. It’s not about negativity; it’s a personal stand on a film. Hated or loved it, I still gained some insight. My friend took my comments too personal. I was merely critiquing the film. Yes, film critiquing is an art form. From short stories to scripts, I think being a film critic is one of the most rewarding writing experiences. If you’re a sincere film buff like me, then I think it’s important to analyze specific techniques and storytelling concepts in a film; the more you understand, the more knowledge you gain from a filmmaker’s perspective. For me, reviewing films has been intellectually stimulating. I know I don’t get paid, but I have a distinct voice, and I love to share my opinion.
       Growing up as a child I would always read the film reviews. I have this uncanny ability to remember hundreds of write-ups from various film critics. Every Friday morning, the first thing I would do was retrieve the Dallas Morning News. Every section, except for the Guide, was useless to me. I used to love to see what kind of praise or criticism a film received the day it opened. Philip Wuntch was the official film critic for the Dallas Morning News since the mid-seventies. I can still recall his reviews. In addition, I learned a great deal from Roger Ebert, Andrew Sarris, and the legendary Pauline Kael. These film aficionados enlightened my knowledge and fueled my passion. 

      Today, I don’t read other reviews. I might scan the write-up or notice what kind of grade the film received, but I keep my mind fresh. I think it’s better to write without any other influences swarming in my head.       Now, as you know, Medium Rare Cinema has never done an interview before. I had the great opportunity of interviewing film critic and author, Philip Wuntch. The best way to understand the world of journalism is to interview someone who's been in that industry for quite sometime. Now, Wuntch is retired, but that doesn’t mean he stops writing about films. Based on his enthusiasm, I admire his career and his writing style. He’s interviewed stars, directors, writers, and now, I get to interview him. This is the first of many interviews for Medium Rare Cinema (mediumrarecinema.blogspot.com), so a word for the readers: there’s just as much valid and exciting film-talk here, as what you would read in a major publication. Enjoy!

Yale: How did you get your start with the Dallas Morning News? 
Philip: I had worked for the Dallas Times-Herald's amusements department (It was called "amusements" back then) for free while attending SMU. I hoped they would hire me when I graduated in 1967, and they did. I was nightclub and live entertainment critic and did some movie reviewing. In 1969, the Dallas Morning News asked me to join their staff. I reviewed nightclubs, live entertainment and some movies until 1974, when I became full-time film critic. I was the first person in the Dallas media actually to have the title of film critic. I remained film critic of the Dallas Morning News until my retirement in 2006. 
Yale: Was newspaper journalism your primary career goal?
Philip: Always.
Yale: When did you become a film enthusiast? What was the one movie that did it for you?
Philip: I saw my first movie when I was three and one-half years old, and that experience completely overwhelmed me. My parents took me to see "Portrait of Jennie" at the Paramount Theater in Austin in early 1949. I didn't understand everything, but I knew it was a romance between an artist (Joseph Cotten) and a ghost (Jennifer Jones). That intrigued me. And the film's climax was a hurricane, which both fascinated and frightened me. I had never experienced anything like it. I was sold on movies from that day on. I learned to read by reading the movie ads in the paper. 
Yale: What was your most passionate review during your professional career; the one film that inspired you to write and write and write?
Philip: If I wrote about a movie again and again and again, some lame-brained editor probably would have roared, "You've been writing too much about that movie! Write about something else!"
Yale: What film festivals have you attended? Which one was your best experience? 
Philip: I mostly stayed at home and covered the USA Film Festival and parts of the videofest. The early days of the USA Film Festival at the Bob Hope Theater at SMU were great. You could sit at a table in the lobby and have a conversation with Frank Capra and Jean Arthur. Since my retirement in 2006, I've attended the Dallas International Film Festival, which is fabulous, and the Asian Film Festival, which I enjoy very much.
Yale: Tell me about some of your most fascinating interviews…writers, directors, actors, producers, etc.
Philip: I've had good luck with interviews. I got two notoriously bad interview subjects -- Warren Beatty and Richard Gere -- to open up, and I got wonderful interviews from Gregory Peck, Sydney Pollack, Arthur Penn, Steven Spielberg, Clint Eastwood, Dustin Hoffman and Robert Towne. Penn said I got the prize for asking him questions he'd never been asked before. I also got very frank interviews from Jack Nicholson and Natalie Wood. The interviewees I disliked most were Kevin Costner and Faye Dunaway, both incredibly pompous.
Yale: What other newspapers have you written for?
Philip: My high school and college papers, the Highland Park Bagpipe and SMU Campus. Then the Times-Herald and the DMN.
Yale: How many staff writers worked on the movie section of the DMN?
Philip: At one time, we had three writers covering film. I was the official film critic. Russell Smith and later Chris Vognar did the films that I did not have time or did not want to do. Jane Sumner did some reviews and covered the Texas movie production scene.
Yale: Where did you go to school? Can you elaborate on your experience?
Philip: I was told I could no longer write movie reviews for the Highland Park High School newspaper because a group of parents complained that my reviews promoted dirty movies. I was reinstated as movie reviewer after a week. On both the high school paper and the SMU paper, I had a captive audience I really enjoyed writing for.
Yale: Who are some of your icons in the movie industry and why?
Philip: Love Alfred Hitchcock. He had great humor, a great visual style and, while he might have sneered at psychological probing of his work, he understood human nature. William Wyler also understood human nature and cared a great deal about characterization. Also love Howard Hawks. Among contemporary directors, I'm a big fan of Alexander Payne, Paul Thomas Anderson, Martin Scorsese, Quentin Tarantino, Joel and Ethan Coen and, for the most part, Steven Spielberg.
Yale: What are your three favorite films of all time?
Philip: It's impossible to narrow it down to three. But I was stunned and amazed by the power of "Bonnie and Clyde" and "Midnight Cowboy." My favorite comedy is Preston Sturges' 1941 "The Lady Eve" with Barbara Stanwyck and Henry Fonda. It's hilarious and romantic. Please don't confuse it with "All About Eve," which most people love but I think is vastly overrated.
Yale: Who is your favorite film director?
Philip: Hitchcock.
Yale: In your opinion, what’s the best decade for cinema?
Philip: The 1960s. And by that I mean the late 1960s through the mid-1970s. Such films as "Bonnie and Clyde," "Midnight Cowboy" and "The Graduate" changed American filmmaking forever. They brilliantly reflected the society of that era although "Bonnie and Clyde" took place 30 years earlier.
Yale: What kinds of dilemmas or pitfalls have you encountered in your profession?
Philip: In the field of journalism, it's tempting for reporters to consider themselves as important as the people they write about. Business writers may dream of being captains of industry, sportswriters may dream of being coaches or star athletes, movie critics may dream of being directors or actors. I always tried to avoid that, and I tried never to talk down to the reader.
Yale: were any of your deadlines stressful?
Philip: Deadlines vary for any journalist. Sometimes there were three weeks between a screening and a deadline. Other times, I had less than one hour to write a review. Covering the Oscars on deadline was always stressful -- but it was a delightful, invigorating kind of stress.
Yale: How do you book interviews? Who sets those up?
Philip: Interviews are almost always set up by studio representatives. However, I have requested certain interviews, and they've usually been receptive.
Yale: If I remember correctly, 1999 was the last year that the Dallas Morning News applied the star system. Since then, it’s been F-A. Which do you prefer, the star system or letter system?
Philip: I definitely prefer the star system. Giving a letter grade to a film seems pompous and pedantic. Of course, some critics ARE pompous and pedantic.
Yale: Growing up as a child, I remember reading several four star reviews, which have stuck in my head for years. These include “Ed Wood” (1994), “Pulp Fiction” (1994), “Lone Star” (1996), “Grace of my Heart” (1996), and I’m not a 100% sure, but I believe “The Brady Bunch Movie” (1995). Did you write any of those?
Philip: I reviewed "Lone Star" and "Ed Wood." I'd still give "Lone Star" four stars but might lower "Ed Wood" to three and a half. Had I reviewed "Pulp Fiction," I would've given it four stars, with three to "Grace of My Heart." I don't remember "The Brady Bunch" review. I believe it opened when I was on leave. I remember it as a modestly enjoyable movie.
Yale: Now, what I definitely recall reading was a four star review of “The Evening Star” (1996), the “Terms of Endearment” sequel. I remember the film was critically panned across the nation, and personally, I thought it was pure sap, but those four stars are embedded in my brain. Any comment?
Philip: I intensely disliked "Evening Star." I thought it was choppy and clumsy, and I never felt "Terms of Endearment" needed a sequel. I wanted to remember those characters as they were. However, Jane Sumner reviewed it and obviously didn't share my feelings, which was fine with me.
Yale: I haven’t had a chance to read your book, “Marty Jurow Seein’ Stars: A Show Biz Odyssey.” Can you talk about your research and writing process?
Philip: I had been friends with Martin Jurow for many years. He was a wonderful person, and I loved him dearly. We would meet every Sunday afternoon and Marty would relate his many memorable experiences. Our research unfortunately was stalled by health problems. I had a heart attack, and Marty had Parkinson's Disease. But we kept plowing on.
Yale: How well-received was your book? How much money did it make? How much did you make?
Philip: Hell, no, Yale. I'm not gonna tell you how much money either I or the book made. But it did great in Dallas, New York and Los Angeles.
Yale: What were some of the important friendships and connections you’ve made throughout your professional career?
Philip: I never sought to make friendships or connections. Didn't want anything to interfere with my objectivity. But Cameron Crowe enjoyed my interview with him so much, he asked me to play a reporter in "Elizabethtown." I had to turn him down.
Yale: What are your thoughts on the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) throughout the decades?
Philip: There's always room for improvement, but it's basically OK with me. I definitely like it better than the old City of Dallas Motion Picture Classification Board, which was an embarrassment to the city. A group of uninformed people would see every movie and rate it suitable or unsuitable for young people and give reasons like sex, violence, perversion or language. They became a national laughing stock when they branded "Paper Moon" not suitable because Tatum O'Neal said, "Daddy, I have to go to the shithouse." Even Johnny Carson made jokes about Dallas and the Classification Board. Former mayor Annette Strauss was one of its driving forces, and it received a lot of prominence prior to its demise, sometime in the late '80s, I think.
Yale: In the world of and ebooks, what are your thoughts on the future of newspaper journalism?
Philip: It's possible that the traditional daily newspaper will remain daily only online and become a weekly publication in print.
Yale: Now that your officially retired, how do you spend your days?
Philip: Just enjoying life with my wife Mimi. She has a dog sitting business that keeps both of us busy. Fortunately we love dogs. Also we love going to movies WE want to see at the times WE want to see them.

The odds are in favor of 50/50

     50/50 is an empathetic comedy about a young, sensible man, Adam (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), who gets cancer and faces the painstaking reality that he might die before his life gets rolling. He is 27, clean-cut, healthy, and a cautious character that is thrown a devastating curveball. As his shock sets in, his confidence and self-esteem is lowered, and his frustration builds to pure angst. Actor Joseph Gordon-Levitt gives a truly tender and endearing performance.
     Adam’s high school buddy, Kyle (Seth Rogan), doesn’t quite know how to react, except to cheer him up as best as possible. I found Rogan’s loud-mouth, geeky macho-like mannerisms to live up to his warm-hearted role in Knocked Up (2007). On occasion, his jocular dialogue overwhelms his presence, but still, he’s in tune with his character. Levitt and Rogan work well together. Their clashing personalities complement the comedic duo.
     I wasn’t quite sure what to expect of 50/50. Sometimes, I think cancer-themed films rely too much on melodrama; the essential purpose is to yank tears from the audience. Instead, 50/50 contains richly defined characters. In the opening scene, we see Adam jogging outside, and when the crosswalk reads “don’t walk,” he complies. The director wants to quickly and efficiently introduce an important dimension of the central character, and that is, he’s very careful.
     After Adam receives his traumatic diagnosis, he agrees to see a 24 year-old therapist, Katherine (Anna Kedrick), and suddenly, he’s uncomfortable. Her office is messy and cluttered, and doesn't agree with Adam's clean sensibilities. Relationships in scripts work well when two characters, who have little common, find a way to relate. While Adam is waiting at the hospital, he befriends three older guys who are also going through chemotherapy. These men might be strange to him, but due to their similar health issues, he’s more relaxed and comfortable than when he’s around his girlfriend, (Bryce Dallas Howard), therapist, or even his caring, yet neurotic mother (Angelica Huston).
     When I realized that Seth Rogan was one of the star attractions, I wasn’t sure which direction the film would go. Are we going to be constantly bombarded by Rogan’s jokes and sarcasm? Well, sometimes his humor runs rampant, but his performance is very genuine. The comic relief is a reminder that it’s not helpful to wallow.

      Joseph Gordon-Levitt rarely falls short of a great performance. As his career shoots for the stars, his choices of character roles are becoming more diverse and challenging. Adam is a character who has difficulties expressing his present emotions. In an empowering scene, Levitt’s underlying feelings finally boil to the surface, and I was reminded of Jack Nicholson in Five Easy Pieces (1970), when he’s alone in his car, ranting and raving in madness. Everything finally comes out, and Adam’s sudden shift in behavior is plausibly portrayed by Levitt. 50/50 is a sure-fire pleasure. The performances are superb, the script is smartly written, and as funny as it is, still, bring your tissue box.

***1/2 (out of four stars)