Late Night Journeys With Scorpions and Frogs

Abstract

The film Drive is a particularly fruitful film to study on a multitude of levels. The film is composed of a plethora of genre influences. Often these conventions from separate genres are in conflict with one another. This is also true to the hero of the film, the Driver, who also seems to have self-contradictory attributes that arrive in part from the genres that make up the film that he inhibits. The other contributing factor to the self-contradiction of the Driver comes from the many different conventions of different types of heroes that compose him. It is from these contradictions that the Driver would seem to be a perfect example of the "Rebel" or an "Existential Hero". And while it will appear upon first inspection to be the case, a second inspection will show the truth of the Driver. The Driver in Drive is about as traditional a hero as they come, rather, it is just the external and internal influences that create a misconception to him being otherwise.

Synopsis

Nicolas Winding Refn's film Drive features a nameless man, the Driver, who lives up to his designation. By day, he works as a stunt driver for Hollywood films. By night, he is a for the hire getaway driver for the criminals of Los Angels, California. All is well in his structured, and peaceful, if albeit partly criminal life. That is until he gets involved with a woman who lives at his apartment complex. Now instead of living in the shadows, he must deal with unreasonable criminals who want the woman's freshly released from prison husband to pay an ever-growing debt. The Driver goes down a dark road of deception, violence, cool cars, and Synth music, all in the attempt to be some sort of hero and protect his new found love.

A scorpion wanted a frog to carry him on his back across a river. The frog declined because he thought that the scorpion would sting him. The scorpion said he would not, as it would doom them both. The frog was convinced by the scorpion, and took them both across the river. Halfway on the journey, the frog felt a stinging pain in his back, and began to sink. With his last breath, he asked the scorpions why he had stung him. The scorpion responded that he could not help it; it was in his nature to do so.

-The Fable of the scorpion and the frog

Part One: The Deconstruction and Reconstruction of Genre in Drive

Where exactly can the film Drive be placed in terms of genre? It is not an easily answered question, but we can start with the title of the film, which would suggest the film is representative of the action genre. But once the film is viewed, it becomes apparent that the film is comprised of a whole slew of other genres. Drive could be grouped it into neo-noir, art house, romance, western, and B film. There are other influences too, like parables (the story of the scorpion and the frog), and fairy tales. With a great deal of influences, not just from specific genres and their inherent archetypes and conventions, but in addition classic parables and stories, it is a wonder that Drive is able to juxtapose all of them against each other and still work as a film. To understand how this experiment was a success, we must deconstruct some of the most prevalent and visible genres in Drive to look at the pieces that make them up, and then also see how the film reconstructed those pieces to work together and have a desired effect. Through this lens of analysis, one can then better understand the nature of The Driver in the film.

We can start by looking at how the film juxtaposes the romance genre and the B film genre. The typical plot of the romance is that of boy meets girl, boy and girl break up, boy and girl get back together. It is a simple formula, but one that is very prevalent in all romance films. In Drive though, the first two parts of the formula are present, while the third is suggested as being a possibility. It is said that love is never that simple, but the boiled down formula present in countless romance films would suggest otherwise. Originally the conception of B films were that, "B […was…] short for bad; a B movie […was…] a film that was made to fill the B side of a double feature and was probably less expensive to produce than the A picture that preceded it." (Sikov 96). However, low budget films have since developed into their own genre with their own conventions. Most B films have such a low budget and production time, that in turn, B films tend to be simpler in their construction and plot. B films thrive on quick, undemanding gratification. They depend on the use of uncomplicated plot elements and cardboard characters. Half of the characters in Drive are stereotypes, and in addition, the plot does not have a complicated construction, as it moves forward in a clear path. This perceived simplicity in the narrative can be found in the almost immediate love between the Driver and Irene. During the montage sequence that plays early on in the film where the Driver drives Irene and her son around, a light Synth love song plays. When Gosling stares at Carey Mulligan one notices how “a film actor must be capable of producing pure expression. His face, for example, must be so constituted that the required expression emerges quite clearly down to the smallest details” (Arnheim 136). Without any dialogue, simply by looking at Gosling everything about his feelings are evident to the audience. In a two or so minute long scene, their love is confirmed and established. There is a dreaminess, a simplicity here that does not bother to talk about the psychological underpinnings of the characters, but instead shows it. In the simplest way possible, a bond of love has been formed between them through the use of both easy on the eyes, easy on the ears, and easy on the mind techniques, and "This capacity for imaginative sequencing is surely a mark of the dream: images are strung together which have never been encountered together in perceived reality but which form a nexus of meaning for the dreamer." (McGinn 112). The on the surface simplicity of the romance blending into the B genre helps make Drive into a film that suggests and puts forth ideas and themes in a non-complex and easily understandable way.

The classic conventions of actions films are very much engrained in the common film viewer. Fights, car chases, gun battles, a damsel in distress, and a charismatic villain are all components that are found in a typical action film to some degree. But perhaps more so than any of those parts, is the overall flavor of being in your face, the explosions, and the lack of subtleness. Drive then exemplifies ''The kinetic quality of many movies is determined by their genre: action pictures... tend to include more and faster movement..." (Barsam 208). Trying to focus all of this action into the art house genre would seem problematic since with an art house film Barsam and Monahan note, "That lack of action represents not only a way of looking at the world (framing it) but also an approach to the movie's narratives and themes." (208). An art film is by definition supposed to be a more serious film with a goal in mind while trying to accomplish that goal by means other than those used in traditional mainstream films. Therefore in a way, an art house film then becomes the antithesis of an action film from Hollywood. But as we see in Drive, the two genres are able to converge together in a non -contradictory way. Drive still has all of the previously listed aspects of an action film (fights, the damsel, lots of action), but the film goes about everything in a much more art film way. The action is toned down in quantity, but at the same time hyped up when it is present. The choice of synth music or no music at all (instead of blaring orchestral music or thumping beats), and the choice of sound effects (in place of no music at some points) greatly alters the mood of the actions sequences. But perhaps most noticeably, the action scenes in take on a more artistic quality. By that it is meant that the action scenes of Drive hold a more toned down, surreal, and of definite construction. The action scenes are not just blaring gunshots, explosions, and music beating us over the head, but they are more smooth and focused.

The safe house scene is a fine example. After having been set up on a job, the Driver and his untrustworthy female accomplice are now hiding in a motel, with the Driver trying to figure out what to do next. He begins to notice that the house is surrounded by hitmen. It is here that Drive is able to set action through an art film lenses. Instead of crazy acrobatics, or skilled martial arts being used, and music blasting to accompany the action, the viewer is treated to something else entirely. After his accomplice is shot in the head, the film begins to slow down, not in extreme slow motion, but more so something in the middle between the regular speeds found in films and slow motion. And after some time of contemplation for the Driver in what he must do, the film gets back up to normal speed again, as he swiftly and brutally dispatches the hitmen. All the while there is no music in the scene, and any sound effects correspond in their speed in relation to how the current speed of the image is going. Watching the film one realizes how "The screen comes alive with feeling because of its ability to suggest the mind in visual terms" (McGinn 105). The way the scene speeds up and slows down, and the final shot of the driver observing the dead bodies and then fading behind the wall, show the ability of Drive, even when it has contradictory genre, to suggest the state and mind of a character. One notices here how “The visible event, the regular rhythmical movement, suddenly stopped dead, contains the most marked characteristic of the inward process” (Arnheim 141), and in his eyes everything about his fate is revealed to the audience. When weighing the juxtaposition of action with character one is reminded of the observation by Camus that, "In every act of rebellion, the rebel simultaneously experiences a feeling of revulsion at the infringement of his rights and a complete and spontaneous loyalty to certain aspects of himself." (10). Typical of the character and therefore the film there is a sort of rebellion in this scene (as with the Driver and his actions prior to the battle( i.e. slapping his female accomplice), in how the scene is based on action but does not follow typical action conventions. The scene is played about as plainly as could be, at least in comparison to a typical action scene, yet still manages, and perhaps because of its toned down and quasi hyper realistic style, that it is able to have such an effect. This scene shows that Drive is able to give the impact of an action film, while using the means of an art film. Therefore, genres blend together to (re)create the narrative expectations of the audience and just as important enhance our understanding of the hero.

Part Two: The Perversion of the Anti-Hero

We can see how Drive juxtaposes supposedly different genres against each other and combines them, but how does it mess with the conventions of classic genres and alters them to suit the film? The entire film is very much influenced by the classic hero of noir films, and western films. Yet on closer examination one notices a twist on the genre conventions, and so the audience witnesses evolved forms of those genres, the neo-noir, and the spaghetti western. From the neo-noir, Drive takes in the classic dark but visually beautiful style of noir, and the crime laden and intricate plot. From the spaghetti western, it takes extreme and sudden violence, and the typical man with no name character. From both genres, Drive takes the idea of a twisted hero, or more correctly described as an anti-hero, and molds it into an even darker and more modern vision. In both neo-noir and spaghetti westerns, the hero is usually a silent type; a strong willed and talented man who is dangerous but also good to a degree. He is a man that is not afraid to get his hands dirty, and often he enjoys doing so, even if it hurts him. As noted in Looking at Movies, "What ever his particular stance and occupation, the Western hero is typically a man of action, not words." (Barsam 103). When we see the Driver kill Nino by stalking him down into the ocean, he says not a single word. There is a very apparent primal theatricality to the whole situation, a surreal and even dream like quality. In his study on the nature of film Colin McGinn understands that, "A movie too, is essentially a hybrid form, a mix of reality and fantasy, fact and fiction." (117). The Driver lives in a world that seems both real and unreal. How else could a man such as him, a wordless, caricature (or so it at first seems) exist? He seems to have an understanding of this fact though. The Driver is enjoying the whole event. He made the murder a work of well thought out art inspired by the very films he works on. This is not a typical hero of classic Hollywood, rather it is an extension from the anti-hero route from both neo-noir and spaghetti western films. In those two genres, and the versions of those genres that preceded it, the hero of the film was not always, and often purposefully not a typical "good" guy. Rather, the hero would be an anti-hero, some one who may do good, but may not do it in such a way or in such a manner as being conceived as good in the traditional sense.

The Driver is a good man, by all common outside considerations. He does his job, does it well, and cares about those that are good to him. But like the anti-heroes of the two previous mentioned film genres, he will sometimes have to dabble in a bit of violence to protect himself and those that he cares about. However, unlike the previously mentioned vision of an anti-hero, the Driver seems to take it a step further. The brutality of the way he goes about his crusade, the ruthlessness and lack of even the slightest mercy or forgiveness is rarely found in even the harshest of the anti-heroes in neo-noir or spaghetti western films. He enjoys and takes part in being a self -fulfilling commentary of the perversion of the not just the idea of a classic hero, but of the anti-hero as well. In this context then The Driver is in many ways a "... slave who has taken orders all his life suddenly decides that he cannot obey some new command." (Camus 10). He could be considered a departure of what an anti-hero is, due to the exceptional level of brutality that he goes about dealing with those that threaten the people he loves. The Driver can be this extreme unreal man since he is living in an extreme unreal movie world, and yet, the world he lives in is in a large part just an extension and elevation of our own. In that sense Drive then suggests the internal angst present in western and noir films (two small parts that make up the film). Many films are capable of such a feat and through the power of images "The screen comes alive with feeling because of its ability to suggest the mind in visual terms." (McGinn 05). A film, even with it being unrealistic, and having contradictory parts, is able to present an authentic and real feeling. Yet this fact then could call into question how though Drive is a film, how closely can what be said in the film, also be said about our reality? In the instance of the hero, it would seem not so much, but that observation, as we shall see, will change later on.

We see the extreme and self aware perversion of the hero and anti-hero idea in the Driver in two scenes especially, the first being the previously mentioned scene where he stalks down and kills Nino. Of importance here is the stunt driving mask that he wears. The first time we see it is earlier on in the film when he does a stunt for a movie. Here he again dons the mask. When the Driver is wearing the mask the first time, he was doing so to look like the hero of the film he was working on. But the second time he dons the mask, the reasons and importance of doing so have far greater implications. He again looks like the hero of the film, but not exactly. A stunt mask can only look so human, and as for this mask, there is actually very little humanity that can be found in it. It looks like a human's face that has been tainted and distorted. And that is what the Driver is, and he recognizes this fact. He accepts this lot in life of being a monster; a violent and law breaking man that conversely tries to do good through unleashing hell on those that deserve it. The Driver is a hero, but he is the sort of hero that people do not exactly want to be. On the nature of the antihero, Barsam and Monahan point out that "These unconventional central characters pursue goals, overcome obstacles, take risks, and suffer consequences─everything needed to propel a compelling narrative─but they lack the traditional 'heroic' qualities that engage the audiences sympathy." (92). The Driver's means are extreme, and he perhaps enjoys doing bad things to bad people a tad too much. But he means well, and follows a set of reasonable principles, he just goes about doing heroic actions in what are traditionally conceived to be un-heroic means. As Lisa Kennedy perfectly notes in a review of the film (in relation to Ryan Gosling's performance as the Driver), "Here, he gives his character a "just visiting this planet" demeanor". In a way, when the Driver puts on the mask, there is still the same dead pan, machine or alien like presence as before. Here the audience confronts a paradox. On the one hand, the mask signifies a distortion of the hero, but on the other hand, not much changes when the mask is put on, in terms of the emotional demeanor of the Driver. The power of the image on the screen creates a confusing dynamic, which we will sort out later, detailing exactly what is what, and when.

The second exemplary scene representing the perversion of the anti-hero is the elevator scene. It is here that the most telling moments of the film take place. The director of Drive, Nicolas Winding Refn, said of the elevator scene, "Every film that you make has to have a scene that is the heart that blood flows through in every other scene. ... It's about a man transforming himself into what he was meant to be." (Abrams). In this scene we see the Driver finally kiss the woman he has fallen in love with, but then immediately afterwards stomps in the head of a hitman sent to kill them both, all the while in the confines of an elevator. The switch from a slow motion kiss that makes a good moment last forever, and then a regular paced and quick crushing of a man's skull with another man's boot is certainly jarring, and purposefully so. It is meant to show the dual sides of the Driver. On the one hand, he is a loving and caring person, and on the other hand he is a violent beast. Irene's immediate reaction to the beating and murder is of course shock, awe, apprehension, and ultimately a realization. A realization that the man she has fallen in love with is a monster of a man. She now recognizes what he is; and poetically, as the elevator doors close, so does their relationship (or as it is assumed in the moment). The reaction of the Driver is equally compelling. After he is done mashing a man's skull he, hunched over, turns his head to look at Irene. The look he gives her is a look of desperate hope, a look of seeking forgiveness. She now realizes what he is, and he knows this. He looks at her like a scared puppy who has been scolded for sitting on the couch, or a child who has been caught with their hand in a cookie jar. Watching Ryan Gosling on the screen one cannot miss how "...the central noir character is an outsider. ... He's self-destructive and, thus, fallible, often suffering abuse on the way to a story conclusion that may very well deny him his goal and will most certainly leave him unredeemed." (Barsam 94). This is to say that even if the actions the Driver takes will only lead to disastrous consequences for himself, he will still do so. He had to kill the hit man, even though it would lead to a realization on the part of Irene on who and what he really is. Both of these characters come to a realization here, that as much as they love each other, they may not be able to be together because of who they are. It is a classic theme in only the best and least clichéd romantic films (being in love does not equal being together), that brings romance to a less clichéd level. Here, not only is this hyper romantic statement accomplished, but also something more; the arrival of a new age existential hero who will go even further than his predecessors in the neo-noir and spaghetti western genres to protect himself, his interest, and the people he loves. We see the extreme and self aware perversion of the hero and anti-hero idea in the Driver in two scenes especially, the first being the previously mentioned scene where he stalks down and kills Nino. Of importance here is the stunt driving mask that he wears. The first time we see it is earlier on in the film when he does a stunt for a movie. Here he again dons the mask. When the Driver is wearing the mask the first time, he was doing so to look like the hero of the film he was working on. But the second time he dons the mask, the reasons and importance of doing so have far greater implications. He again looks like the hero of the film, but not exactly. A stunt mask can only look so human, and as for this mask, there is actually very little humanity that can be found in it. It looks like a human's face that has been tainted and distorted. And that is what the Driver is, and he recognizes this fact. He accepts this lot in life of being a monster; a violent and law breaking man that conversely tries to do good through unleashing hell on those that deserve it. The Driver is a hero, but he is the sort of hero that people do not exactly want to be. On the nature of the antihero, Barsam and Monahan point out that "These unconventional central characters pursue goals, overcome obstacles, take risks, and suffer consequences─everything needed to propel a compelling narrative─but they lack the traditional 'heroic' qualities that engage the audiences sympathy." (92). The Driver's means are extreme, and he perhaps enjoys doing bad things to bad people a tad too much. But he means well, and follows a set of reasonable principles, he just goes about doing heroic actions in what are traditionally conceived to be un-heroic means. As Lisa Kennedy perfectly notes in a review of the film (in relation to Ryan Gosling's performance as the Driver), "Here, he gives his character a "just visiting this planet" demeanor". In a way, when the Driver puts on the mask, there is still the same dead pan, machine or alien like presence as before. Here the audience confronts a paradox. On the one hand, the mask signifies a distortion of the hero, but on the other hand, not much changes when the mask is put on, in terms of the emotional demeanor of the Driver. The power of the image on the screen creates a confusing dynamic, which we will sort out later, detailing exactly what is what, and when.

Part 3: The Destiny of the Man with No Name

It is evident that Drive is a film that takes different genres apart and then combines them in new ways that challenge our understanding of what genre reconstruction means. However, the nature of each genre ultimately connects to how Drive is at its narrative core about one man becoming a hero. The Driver finds meaning in protecting, and eventually sacrificing himself for those that he cares about. Unlike the classic idea of a hero though, he is not completely heroic or good. He may care about other people. He may even commit deeds and actions that can be perceived as good and righteous. He is however at times exceedingly violent, and merciless, and unforgiving as well. Those three qualities are never thought to be what composites a hero; more so, they come across as attributes of a villain. Kenneth Turan states in a review of Drive that, "It's a film in love with both traditional noir mythology and ultra-modern violence, a combination that is not ideal". Turan states that the traditions of noir, and a modern fondness for violence do not go along. This observation seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding on his part. As it has been shown, noir is not a flowery little genre. And while the most of the films that originated in the genre and made up the early part of its history are certainly not as exceedingly violent by either Drive, or any modern film's standards, to believe that the gelling of the two does not work is simply not understanding what noir is at its core. There could be a noir film, or a noir character that doles out little to no violence at all, and vice versa (in the case of Drive and the Driver). Noir is not about the levels of physical violence, it is about the emotional underpinnings and the complex psychology of the characters due to the dark and shadowy world that they live in. The genre is about the psychological violence and pain that our society (and the people in it), inflict upon us, and that we inflict upon ourselves. In that sense then when watching the film the viewer realizes how "... only the moving image could capture the inherent dynamism of human emotion, its flows, swerves, and surges." (McGinn 106). The images in any film, and especially noir, are not exactly the most important part, rather, we look to beneath them, to see what those images really mean and are saying. Whether physical violence is used as a means to that end, or no physical violence is used to achieve that effect or presence of that especially important convention of the genre, is irrelevant.

As a result, like the multiple genres that make up the film Drive, the Driver is the accumulation and combination of many forms of the hero archetype. To juxtapose totally different genres and totally different hero archetypes against each other creates a self contradictory agglomeration of a hero in the Driver. The Driver appears to be in many ways similar to an existential hero when we look at predominant attributes of a theoretical system in which "... the existentialist doctrine placed its emphasis on the passions and anxieties of the individual man ... Existentialism was a philosophy of subjectivity ... It was a backlash against the predominant philosophers of the Enlightenment who gave little consideration to the subject of the individual " (Goudy). The Driver would appear to be an enigmatic individual who rebels against the powerful, while also suffering from internal angst (the clashing hero traits and how they ruin his chance at love). He is partly good, but also partly bad, at least what is traditionally considered to be bad (criminal activities, violence, etcetera). Yet as it has been stated before, he is self knowing of his current predicament and of what and who he is.

It would be reasonable to assume that the Driver would not want to (at least always) be what he is. If he were less violent and animalistic, then he would have been able to keep his lover by not scaring her away and only doing the bare minimum of incapacitating the hitman in the elevator, instead of killing the man ruthlessly. Going against and following inherent actions and feelings are not just a big theme in the film, but they play a central role, especially to the struggle of the Driver. The Driver seems to make choices, which, in relation to "the hands of the existentialists, individual man was given supreme responsibility for his own existence, taken in past eras by gods, kings and science." (Goudy). The Driver is in many ways an existential man, one who deals with choices that go against the regular trimmings of society, and himself. Drive showcases a sense of the confusion between good and bad (if there is such a thing), between one genre and another, between one convention of a hero and another, but also a confusion within oneself, within the new age hero in a new age world. There is a strain of fatalistic destiny, and fighting or accepting it, that runs throughout the entire film. The Driver is an existential hero, an extension of the anti hero, therefore in this context "He is resistant, or at least uncomfortable─with the trappings of civilization, even in those common cases where he serves as a civilizing agent." (Barsam 103). The Driver is a person who commits good deeds, but he does these deeds in a particularly not so "good" way, and he deals with troubles of a psychologically dark weight that past hero's never had to face. Characters make choices because of who they are, because of the different and conflicting pieces that make them up. And while many of those choices are "bad", the characters themselves would have been fools to choose over their self interest and their self preservation; they would have been unable to go against who they are. There is a sense of self conflict in both the anti and the existential visions of the hero, and this is because of conflicting aspects that make up the hero and his world.

It remains here to be decided on whether the Driver is actually following his nature. He is a hero infused with the conventions of hero's from noir, spaghetti westerns, and romances (among other genres), that much is true. It is in his destiny to protect those that he cares about, do it violently, and do it without regard to his own personal wellbeing. His goal is to get the girl. Yet even more important than that, his goal is also to protect her. The ultimate act of a hero is to sacrifice himself for the protection of another. As a result the Driver yearns to be with the one he loves, as any romantic hero does, he also wants her to be safe. So there is a conflict of interest, just as there is with a conflict of genre in Drive. In their discussion on the Western genre Barsam and Monahan note that narrative of the film will "... reverse or combine the thematic elements of order and chaos." (103). Within the Driver there is an order, a set of rules that creature structure, which expulses any chaos from his life. But because of his dealings with his new found love, he has to make a choice; a choice on which of his dueling principals will win (love or protection); which destiny will he choose. It would appear he chose the stronger of the two heroic principles, protection of others. The Driver is a hero, and a rebel against society due to his conflicting principles because he goes about dealing with the evils he faces with a newfound personal philosophy and set of values that seem to spit in the face of self preservation and some of his personal desires. For that reason Albert Camus best states the intentions of the Drivers actions when he said, "The protest against evil which is at the very core of metaphysical revolt is significant in this regard. ... After all, pain, exile, or confinement are sometimes accepted when dictated by good sense or by the doctor. In the eyes of the rebel, what is missing from the misery of the world, as well as from its moments of happiness, is some principle by which they can be explained." (53). Throughout the film, at three different points, the Driver gives a set of rules to potential partners in criminal dealings, while also following a strict set of protocols in other instances. He attempts to create a system of order and justice in relation to criminal chaos and violence. He attempts to give meaning, purpose, and structure to something that would otherwise seem to have none of those things. He rebels against a creature that seems unmanageable by trying to control it through his own personal beliefs and values. The Driver rebels against the natural order, defying its control and power, and in turn trying to make it malleable to his own will. The Driver would appear to be a rebel, and an existential hero for his choices against himself and the society he finds himself in.

But despite all the evidence that points to the contrary, it can be said that the Driver did not really choose his path, that he is not a rebel, or an existential hero either. Albert Camus again stated, in relation to the rebel:

"From the moment that man submits God to moral judgment, he kills Him in his own heart. And then what is the basis of morality? God is denied in the name of justice, but can the idea of justice be understood without the idea of God? At this point are we not in the realm of absurdity? ... In order to be able to dismiss it, he pushes it to extremes: morality is the ultimate aspect of God, which must be destroyed before reconstruction can begin. Then God no longer exists and is no longer responsible for our existence; man must resolve to act, in order to exist." (34).

This observation sounds very much like a rebel and suggest an analogy to the Driver, a man who defies God as the indicator of moral right and wrong, and uses his own code. It would appear that he has rejected God, rebelled against him, and then created his own set of laws to define and confirm his existence. But it would be an error to so quickly assume this is the case.

The Driver certainly appears to be a non -traditional hero, and perhaps even a rebel or an existential hero. But at his core, he does not go against the principles of a classical hero. He still protects children. He still tries to help others that don't necessarily deserve it (Irene's husband Standard). He still sacrifices himself to protect his maiden in distress. His means may be vicious in comparison to classic hero conventions, but his ends are the same. In his classic study on human behavior Friedrich Nietzsche "... claimed that traditional notions of good and evil embodied a slave morality that needed to be transcended by a higher form of humanity that would lead toward the enchantment of life in a world without God." (Ed. M. Cahn 397). The Driver still adheres to traditional notions of good and evil; he is still a slave to classic principles and values. It is just how he goes about particularly difficult choices and traditionally unpleasant situations that make him appear to be a perversion of the anti-hero into a rebel and an existential hero. There was actually never a choice for the Driver to make on his course actions. He always had to go down the path he took. In a way, the Driver is a slave to his traditional beliefs of being a hero, much like the fatalistic choices of a hero in noir films, where one cannot escape how "The themes are fatalistic, the tones cynical." (94). Had he not protected his love, then he would not be a hero. So he had no choice, for he must have done what he did to be what he is, other wise he would not be anything, otherwise he would be conflicting and contrary in of himself, and despite that seemingly being the case at a first glance, there is in the end only one path that a hero must choose; there is only one choice that a hero ever has to make, the right choice that follows his nature of being a hero.

Consequently, the Driver is not a classic existential hero. He does not suffer from angst, he does not have trouble with conflicting choices due to the competing genre and hero conventions that compose him. The Driver only ever had one path present and open for him to walk on due to his values. This is because in the end, all hero's, all people, like the scorpion on the frog's back from the classic fable, can not help what they do, they can not change who they are, they can not alter or choose their nature, and it is their nature that determines their actions. The Driver does what he does not because he wants' to, but because he has no choice in the matter; his actions are dictated by who he is in his nature; it is who he is to be the Driver, and if he did not do what the Driver would do, than he would not be the Driver. He does not rebel in anyway shape or form, rather, it is his intense adherence and willingness to go to extremes to uphold traditional heroic values that give the illusion of the opposite being true.

In Conclusion

A hero is not a hero by choice, but by nature. While the components that make up the film Drive would point to an existential and new age angst in both in the conventions of a hero and in the genre form, the Driver never saw or even conceived of doing anything other than what he did. That is why he often goes about his sometimes dirty, sometimes violent, and sometimes dark actions with a sense of calmness and serenity. He is a machine with programming that only allows him to act a certain way. He knows his path, he knows that his only choice is to be what he is, and he wholeheartedly, despite any difficulties he will face, follows this path. The only times the Driver ever elicits any emotion is when those that he cares about are threatened, which is a natural response of any person, and a classic attribute of a traditional hero. The Driver, while at first appearing to be a new age existential hero full of angst, he is actually just a traditional hero with a new paint job. Any conceivable differences between him and the traditional hero are purely superficial. The means may be different, but his end is still the same. It is in his nature to be a hero, and he maintains that goal, but because of the actions of other people that he is unable to control, he must go to extreme lengths to ensure that he becomes what he was meant to be.

Consequently, while the components that make up a person can often be conflicting, the outcome does not have to be determined into an opposing or paradoxical form because of this. Every person struggles with multiple conflicting views and options about how he should act. But only one action can ever succeed in the competition of actions and be committed. These actions with similar attributes form a chain, which is our nature, which is who we are. The Driver's actions have means that are not typical of classic and conventional heroes, though he is still a hero because his actions have ends that are sought after for their goodness, and the actions follow a path laid out for him. He never administers any of his own personal choice or feelings into this path. While the contradiction of the conventions of specific characters that influence a person (a hero), or the contradicting attributes of the persons surroundings (genre's), can cause a certain understanding of said person, these are actually not perfect indicators to a person's true form. In reality, while they can certainly influence who a person is, just because the composing pieces of a person are contradictory does not mean that the person too will be contradictory.

Works Cited

Abrams, Simon. Roger Ebert. "Art is an Act of Violence." an Interview with Nicolas Winding Refn. (2013). Web. 21 Oct. 2014. ‹http://www.rogerebert.com/balder-and-dash/art-is-an- act-of-violence-an-interview-with-nicolas-winding-refn›.

Arnheim, Rudolf. The Content of Film As Art. University of California Press, 1971.

Barsam, and Dave Monahan. Looking at Movies. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc, 2013. Print.

Camus, Albert. The Rebel. Vintage International, 1991. Web. 10 Nov. 2014. ‹https://libcom.org/files/The-Rebel-Albert-Camus.pdf›.

Drive. Dir. Nicolas Winding Refn. Perf. Ryan Gosling, Carey Mulligan, Bryan Cranston, Christina Hendricks, Ron Perlman, Oscar Isaac, Albert Brooks. FilmDistrict, 2011. Film.

Goudy, Ginny. "Existential Criminal." studymore. Middlesex University, 2003. Web. 10 Nov. 2014. ‹http://www.studymore.org.uk/xgoudy.htm#Referencing›.

Kennedy, Lisa. The Denver Post. 2011. Web. 4 Dec. 2014. ‹http://www.denverpost.com/movies/ci_18896060›.

McGinn, Colin. The Power of Movies. Vintage, 2007. Print.

Nietzsche, Friedrich. "On the Genealogy of Morals." Ethics: History, Theory, and Contemporary Issues. Ed. Steven M. Cahn, Peter Markie. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012. Page 397-431. Print.

Sikov, Ed. Film Studies: an Introduction. New York: Columbia University Press, 2010. Print.

Turan, Kenneth. Los Angeles Times. 2011. Web. 4 Dec. 2014. ‹http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/16/entertainment/la-et-drive-20110916›.