Listen now | This week’s episode is Drive My Car directed by Ryusuke Hamaguchi. We both felt pretty lukewarm on this movie. There are a lot of things in it that just don’t work very well, which we dive into in this episode. Where Drive My Car does succeed is in the scenes between Kafuku and the driver.
For what it’s worth, I had no problem believing any of the nonsense play decisions that Casey said took him out of the movie.
I grew up in a town built around a Shakespeare theater (Ashland OR), and the last creative director there loved this kind of stuff. I’ve actually seen a production of Merchant of Venice where they cast a deaf actor who delivered his lines in sign language! And this same director then went to Broadway, put on a blockbuster show with Brian Cranston, and won a Tony. So the idea that Yusuke is successful enough to get a residency and sell out shows, despite making baffling decisions that would render his plays barely watchable, felt completely true to my playgoing experience.
I had a different viewing experience. I thought the first 40 minutes were boring on purpose, imitating and somewhat parodying Bergman (like Scenes from a marriage). Then the movie picks up momentum with the wife dying, then with the homicidal actor and then the horror story of the driver's early life (which are all over-the-top and unrealistic). So I thought the jarringness and clunkiness was there on purpose to make an extreme change of pace.
I thought the emotionless table read sessions were a commentary on overacting at the theater. I really liked the way the best acting in the Chekhov piece was done with sign language at the end (the rest was standard overacting, same thing with Godot with the cheap laugh with the pants falling down.)
For the ending, I thought like you, the theatre director was self-centered. So I interpreted the final shot in South Korea as the narrator deciding to switch focalization to the real emotional center of the story, that is the driver. As if it was a meta-commentary on the self-centeredness of the director character and how boring his concerns were.
I don't know, maybe it's a bit far-fetched, like I rationalized the clunkiness of the film. But anyway I thought it was way more interesting a movie than Winter Sleep, which is a straight adaptation of Chekhov. It will make me watch Uncle Vanya which is something I was not planning to do :)
This is by far the most overrated movie I've seen in a while, besides The Batman, but I consider that one a comedy.
This movie honestly felt like it was trying so hard to reach for an Oscar with so little to work with, to the point where they forgot about maintaining any quality to the story or character development. It seemed like they were deliberatley stretching the film so that they can boast a 3 hour runtime like it's an epic tale or something. I couldn't finish it in one sitting. You could easily cut it down to a 90 minute or less film and it may actually win an award then. I'd agree with you guys that I would only recommend it if there was a stripped down zero fat version of this, maybe someone at some point would come up with a fan cut, the way they did for some of Stanley Kubrick's movies.
Casey made a very eloquent point that managed to describe long shots in a way I couldn't put my finger on before, namely, I wouldn't mind long shots if there was something substantial to learn from them. Some directors nail long montages and do a great job at making an impactful long scene. This wasn't it.
Then there is the characters. IMO the whole thing went tits-up the moment that kid suddenly became the deep wise one. In that moment there was no distinction between him and the protagonist, and then you realize that the writers only know one way to write emotional dialogue. There is so little character contrast, and a destinct lack of emotion and maybe that's a cultural difference. But I can never believe a character you've been building up half the movie as the shallow out-of-touch, egocentric one is suddenly this deep, sensitive, profound and emotional person, AND make one of the highest points in the film, then casually make him a rage murderer who beats people to death.
Reading about the source material, the Murakami short story, it originally didn't have that much focus on the play, there's also a better reason for the driver, as he had his license revoked because of his glaucoma. WHY WOULD YOU CHANGE THAT? It sounded like a very weird requirement to straight up forbid the visiting artist from ever driving a car when the original story already had a good reason for him not to, THEY EVEN GO OVER IT, a whole scene at the doctor's.
Then there is this weird play. Funny thing you mention plays from Chekhov being a very specific type of classic theater that you only go to see because you're sort of expected to think it's a great work. It seems to me the movie was trying hard to become its own "Uncle Vanya" play by deliberatley shoving weird content that challenges the patience of the viewer while expecting them to be impressed by their "genius". Many people seem to have fell for it too. There is this weird thing in movies where the less sense a movie makes the higher the chance for it to be called a masterpiece. And it indeed won International Critics’ Award for Best Film of the Year. It's laughable.
Lukewarm indeed, an inflated Oscar-grab, an epic of aimless writing. It is embarassing when you realize all the good things about the movie came from the short story it originated from. Then you realize this movie shouldn't have existed, as the short story would have sufficed.
When I first watched this movie, the most satisfying thing that I got out of it was a decision to read the original story by Murakami — which turned out to be quite short, sweet and approachable.
I wasn't ready at that time to reflect on all the cruft that the creators felt needed to be crammed on top of the already fine writing, just shrugged that off with "oh, those japanese screenwriters".
After that I had a little streak of Uncle Vanya, I read the original play and watched a bunch of cinematic/theatrical versions I could find, and was curious to discover that the only thing not just remotely bearable, but even amazing, was the 2020 play, with Toby Jones as uncle Vanya.
So, probably it's now time for me to revisit the film, at the very least to see if the added Vanya references of the filmmakers start making any sense.
For what it’s worth, I had no problem believing any of the nonsense play decisions that Casey said took him out of the movie.
I grew up in a town built around a Shakespeare theater (Ashland OR), and the last creative director there loved this kind of stuff. I’ve actually seen a production of Merchant of Venice where they cast a deaf actor who delivered his lines in sign language! And this same director then went to Broadway, put on a blockbuster show with Brian Cranston, and won a Tony. So the idea that Yusuke is successful enough to get a residency and sell out shows, despite making baffling decisions that would render his plays barely watchable, felt completely true to my playgoing experience.
I had a different viewing experience. I thought the first 40 minutes were boring on purpose, imitating and somewhat parodying Bergman (like Scenes from a marriage). Then the movie picks up momentum with the wife dying, then with the homicidal actor and then the horror story of the driver's early life (which are all over-the-top and unrealistic). So I thought the jarringness and clunkiness was there on purpose to make an extreme change of pace.
I thought the emotionless table read sessions were a commentary on overacting at the theater. I really liked the way the best acting in the Chekhov piece was done with sign language at the end (the rest was standard overacting, same thing with Godot with the cheap laugh with the pants falling down.)
For the ending, I thought like you, the theatre director was self-centered. So I interpreted the final shot in South Korea as the narrator deciding to switch focalization to the real emotional center of the story, that is the driver. As if it was a meta-commentary on the self-centeredness of the director character and how boring his concerns were.
I don't know, maybe it's a bit far-fetched, like I rationalized the clunkiness of the film. But anyway I thought it was way more interesting a movie than Winter Sleep, which is a straight adaptation of Chekhov. It will make me watch Uncle Vanya which is something I was not planning to do :)
This is by far the most overrated movie I've seen in a while, besides The Batman, but I consider that one a comedy.
This movie honestly felt like it was trying so hard to reach for an Oscar with so little to work with, to the point where they forgot about maintaining any quality to the story or character development. It seemed like they were deliberatley stretching the film so that they can boast a 3 hour runtime like it's an epic tale or something. I couldn't finish it in one sitting. You could easily cut it down to a 90 minute or less film and it may actually win an award then. I'd agree with you guys that I would only recommend it if there was a stripped down zero fat version of this, maybe someone at some point would come up with a fan cut, the way they did for some of Stanley Kubrick's movies.
Casey made a very eloquent point that managed to describe long shots in a way I couldn't put my finger on before, namely, I wouldn't mind long shots if there was something substantial to learn from them. Some directors nail long montages and do a great job at making an impactful long scene. This wasn't it.
Then there is the characters. IMO the whole thing went tits-up the moment that kid suddenly became the deep wise one. In that moment there was no distinction between him and the protagonist, and then you realize that the writers only know one way to write emotional dialogue. There is so little character contrast, and a destinct lack of emotion and maybe that's a cultural difference. But I can never believe a character you've been building up half the movie as the shallow out-of-touch, egocentric one is suddenly this deep, sensitive, profound and emotional person, AND make one of the highest points in the film, then casually make him a rage murderer who beats people to death.
Reading about the source material, the Murakami short story, it originally didn't have that much focus on the play, there's also a better reason for the driver, as he had his license revoked because of his glaucoma. WHY WOULD YOU CHANGE THAT? It sounded like a very weird requirement to straight up forbid the visiting artist from ever driving a car when the original story already had a good reason for him not to, THEY EVEN GO OVER IT, a whole scene at the doctor's.
Then there is this weird play. Funny thing you mention plays from Chekhov being a very specific type of classic theater that you only go to see because you're sort of expected to think it's a great work. It seems to me the movie was trying hard to become its own "Uncle Vanya" play by deliberatley shoving weird content that challenges the patience of the viewer while expecting them to be impressed by their "genius". Many people seem to have fell for it too. There is this weird thing in movies where the less sense a movie makes the higher the chance for it to be called a masterpiece. And it indeed won International Critics’ Award for Best Film of the Year. It's laughable.
Lukewarm indeed, an inflated Oscar-grab, an epic of aimless writing. It is embarassing when you realize all the good things about the movie came from the short story it originated from. Then you realize this movie shouldn't have existed, as the short story would have sufficed.
Pre-podcast comment,
When I first watched this movie, the most satisfying thing that I got out of it was a decision to read the original story by Murakami — which turned out to be quite short, sweet and approachable.
I wasn't ready at that time to reflect on all the cruft that the creators felt needed to be crammed on top of the already fine writing, just shrugged that off with "oh, those japanese screenwriters".
After that I had a little streak of Uncle Vanya, I read the original play and watched a bunch of cinematic/theatrical versions I could find, and was curious to discover that the only thing not just remotely bearable, but even amazing, was the 2020 play, with Toby Jones as uncle Vanya.
So, probably it's now time for me to revisit the film, at the very least to see if the added Vanya references of the filmmakers start making any sense.