As I checked just today, both the productions received an Academy Award nomination - Drive got one for the sound editing while Ides of March is chasing up the hill of adapted screenplay.
I have seen both and I heard mixed opinions of both as well.
Drive struck like a thunder in the late September leaving the audience speechless - this movie is just different - was among the feedback I heard. It is true by all means. The film is heavily stylised for the 80s' cinema in therms of image and sound and evolves around the story of the nameless driver for hire who happens to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. Gosling's character by all means is different to your everyday blockbuster's; he vaguely speaks, his face hardly leaves a trace of emotion. He just drives. The driver resembles the samurai-like characters who follow a strict set of rules bound by honour. Once given a word, he would not turn back.
As the plot develops, he would soon cross paths with the two antagonists, Ron Pearlman and Albert Brooks who are way less enigmatic: they are pure evil, and also would not stop for anything to achieve what they are after.
Refn's production strikes an amazing balance between the main characters subtlety and the visual effects close to 80's gore B-movies (ironically, Brooks' characters is a producer of these).
Ides of March is way more mainstream, as expected of Clooney's.
Here Gosling plays Stephen Meyers, a successful rookie left among the big guns of dirty politics. Meyers, as opposed to the rest of the cast is idealistic and hasn't been polluted with the cynicism and amorality (yet). This time Gosling is a completely different character - he is a charismatic pressman who is able to 'talk out' whoever he meets. Also he adapts more than one face expression throughout the film.
As the plot thickens, Gosling character is faced with moral dilemmas: his pride and curiosity lead him to a dead-end - as he experiences the true nature of heavy-weight politics behind the scenes, he goes all-in against the odds and his superiors.
Both Drive and Ides of March have been in some way remarkable productions and overall had a very good reception amongst the critics. Drive's lone rider scheme seems to resemble No Country for Old Men, with limited characters, long sequences and a feature-long pursuit. The production's trademark was the mesmerizing soundtrack. Ides of March's main strength was the cast of supporting roles - much like in Noolan's Inception despite the action centered around the main character, it is the secondary characters who 'make the production complete'.
The Drive is more popular according to imdb's results and has yet scored more awards, yet left it is Ides of March which left me more speechless. Despite the amazing visual and musical craft, the movie left me following the quality of image rather than image as such - despite the remarkable character development it lacked plot-twists and as such was pretty predictable from the moment of explosion onwards. All I could guess was how 'explicit' the next death would be. Ides of March on the other hand also was crafted finely but at the same time made me delve into the plot myself and wonder what happens in the sequence to follow.
Just personal thoughts. I am not saying one is better than the other, and both are definitely worth the while.
One question though : despite the earlier concerns which of the two productions Gosling should go with for the Academy Awards - how come he never actually got a nomination? I think I've been missing something.
No comments:
Post a Comment