MovieChat Forums > Drive (2011) Discussion > Albert Brooks SPOILERS

Albert Brooks SPOILERS

posted 5 years ago by ecarle (14979)
22 replies | jump to latest

..one of the great portrayals of a "real" gangster.

Brooks had played a dangerous gangster type in "Out of Sight" some years ago, but it really didn't prepare us for THIS.

There is general interest and amusement in seeing Brooks play a businessman-type tough talking LA gangster for much of the film until we reach "that part":

Where with his building rage at the guy who screwed up the heist(in his mind), and in front of another "uglier" supposedly meaner Jewish gangster(Ron Perlman)...

...Brooks grabs a fork from its bin and sticks it in the screw-up's eye so as to immobilize(and brutalize) him, and then grabs a knife from ITS bin to finish the job with a knife to the throat.

Thus does Brooks let us in on a key aspect of a true gangster: "businesslike and quiet" on the surface, a psychopath capable of committing a murder that few people would have the stomach to execute(even Perlman's mean gangster has to look away.)

And then Brooks to Perlman: "There...this time you have to clean up after MY mess."

With Brooks now revealed as ultra-dangerous, the plot moves on until he has his little chat with Bryan Cranston(such a beloved character guy now, even when breaking bad). Brooks extends his hand for a handshake with Cranston, Cranston takes Brooks' hand, and that's all Brooks needs to bring out a straight razor, slash Cranston's wrist(in just the right place to cause maximum fast bleed-out) and speak reassuringly to Cranston:

Brooks: That's it. That's all. The worst part is over. It will be painless.

In his own way, Brooks the Knifeman has executed Cranston with a touch of kindness.

Then we get a brief bit with Brooks home alone and putting the straight razor back into a glass case with knives. We get the point(literally): Brooks is that most savage of killers, skilled with blades (I'm reminded of Solozzo the Turk in The Godfather, of whom Hagen says "Said to be skilled with a knife, but only for business.".) And he collects the blades. And "babies" them. He's a psycho.

Thus the tension is building when Brooks has lunch with our hero, The Driver and says "We'll put this to bed, shake hands on it , and go our separate ways."

In the final confrontation, Brooks indeed plays his usual game of playing the quiet businessman before pulling a blade to ram into The Driver -- but the Driver has a blade, too(likely he brought it with him given what happened to Cranston, whom he discovered dead.) It was "arty" to play out the final killing of Brooks by The Driver entirely in shadow, but I'm kind of sorry we didn't get to see Brooks know he was losing, dying.

And as for the Driver? Well, its left open.

In the meantime, Albert Brooks has gone down in film history as playing one of the most sickening and psychopathic gangsters ever -- a reminder that the "top dogs" in the business are mad dogs.

[–] BourbonKing (5777) 5 years ago

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

You don't remember Albert from "Taxi Driver"? He went toe to toe with psychotic Travis Bickle who laid waste to an entire brothel staffed by gun wielding thugs. Mind you he was playing the nerdy "guy friend" type to insanely hot Betsy (Cybill Shepherd) but he exuded just enough confidence as a master organizer (in this case State Campaign for a Presidential hopeful who eventually wins the nomination).

--

That's true. Brooks didn't go shuffling away a nervous wreck like Woody Allen used to play back then. His male character showed a certain amount of bravery going up against the clearly disturbed DeNiro. There was also a "class thing" there -- Brooks was an educated type and DeNiro was from the streets.

So...I'll most certainly grant you this point. Perhaps the issue is that Albert Brooks...like a lot of comedians with a kind of grouchy edge -- finally found a way to use his persona in a tougher, menacing way. Brooks is FAIRLY menacing in Out of Sight as a gangster, but ENTIRELY menacing in Drive as a gangster: the added element of his being a man who can stab another man in the eye adds a psychopathic horror to the "gang boss" role that Brooks entails simply by acting out the horrific scene.

--

I'm not downplaying your contrast between his two characters you mentioned but I don't think Albert was ever viewed upon like a Woody Allen type. He's actually right up there with Dustin Hoffman and Elliot Gould.

---

Yes, and perhaps Richard Dreyfuss, too(who believably played a scrappy fighter of a cop in "Stakeout.")

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

I only know him as funny screwball husband from "Lost in america" if its the same guy

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

Its the same guy!

[–] SlackerInc (1101) 2 years ago

He said in an interview on a Blu-ray extra that he had never played a character who killed anyone before. What's wild about that interview is that he said his character was "not a villain"! He was just cornered, you see, and was doing what he had to do. I have heard this before, that actors tend to become sympathetic to the characters they play, but that was really a reach. "Not a villain"...ok then.

I did find all those confrontations extremely compelling, but if you think too much about the last one it is weird in two directions. First, that Brooks thinks he can just take out this younger, stronger guy who he knows has just killed several other people who were trying to kill him. No goons to bring along? Second, on the other side of the coin, that while Driver seemed ready to kill Brooks, he wasn't more ready to avoid getting knifed in the gut.

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

He said in an interview on a Blu-ray extra that he had never played a character who killed anyone before.

---

I can't really remember the plot or payoff of "Out of Sight," but I recall that Brooks played some sort of criminal there -- a boss? --- and I'll take his word he didn't kill anybody in THAT movie.

There are several "aspects" of the gangster character in American movies. For instance, sometimes we have a boss surrounded by much bigger, younger , tougher men -- but they don't defy or attack him. They obey him. I'm guessing because he's usually the smartest man and most able to guarantee income for his employees with his plans.If he dies, the business goes under and they lose their jobs. So he commands loyalty and coups aren't launched against him.

BUT then there's the boss who is the boss BECAUSE he's the biggest, toughest, meanest -- nobody can PHYSICALLY challenge him. (See: Bane in The Dark Knight Rises.)

Albert Brooks in Drive is somewhat a combination of the two: the smart guy who runs the operations AND the most dangerous to cross -- because he's a psychopath, good with a blade(LOVES his blades) and is capable of ANYTHING, murder-wise. He's got the stomach to stick a fork in one guy's eye, and to slash the wrist -- surgically -- of another to cause instant bleedout.

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

Conversely, Drive reminds us that when you "shake hands with the Devil" (literally , here), you never know what the end game will be. Working with criminals can be low risk(job is pulled, job is over, you part ways), or high risk -- they beat you up if you don't perform, they kill you if you are in the way -- and(with Brooks) they kill you HORRIBLY (in a sickening manner creating great pain.) You just don't know who you are dealing with in the criminal class.

---

What's wild about that interview is that he said his character was "not a villain"! He was just cornered, you see, and was doing what he had to do. I have heard this before, that actors tend to become sympathetic to the characters they play, but that was really a reach. "Not a villain"...ok then.

---

Ha. OK, then. Well, a psychopath feels no remorse or empathy for his victims, so it probably is "just business" to Brooks' killer here. A part of his job. And if he can conjure up a feeling of being "cornered" -- its self defense.

Still, the late reveal of Brooks as pretty much a slasher killer -- and that creepy scene where he babies his blades in a special case -- suggests a latent sadism to the character, too -- he ENJOYS bloodily murdering people if he has to. Plus: who knows what his childhood was like. Brutal? Sexually abused? Experimented with knives on animals?

---

---
CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

I did find all those confrontations extremely compelling, but if you think too much about the last one it is weird in two directions. First, that Brooks thinks he can just take out this younger, stronger guy who he knows has just killed several other people who were trying to kill him. No goons to bring along? Second, on the other side of the coin, that while Driver seemed ready to kill Brooks, he wasn't more ready to avoid getting knifed in the gut

---

Very true -- on both sides -- and that's what makes the final confrontation SO compelling. Its brilliantly set up (from Brooks' side) by our SEEING him slash nice guy Bryan Cranston's wrists during a handshake -- and then HEARING him tell Gosling "We'll shake hands on it and be on our way." We KNOW that Brooks will be looking to slice Gosling up at that handshake moment and the suspense is in place. And yet (as I recall) Brooks makes his knife move before the handshake(its not so much IN shadow as the two fighting men are shown only AS shadows.)

Perhaps Brooks didn't bring men along because he didn't want witnesses, knew he could surprise Gosling with the blade, and counted on Gosling not to take him too seriously as a strong man.

Perhaps Gosling wasn't prepared enough for the knife attack because he felt he COULD take the older "weaker" man, and was perhaps expecting a gun rather than such an expertly wielded knife. He was perhaps ready to be as brutal with Brooks as he was with the guy in the elevator. Gosling AND Brooks go for sudden brutal attacks out of nowhere.

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

As it turned out, Gosling WAS able to kill Brooks -- neither of Brooks' earlier victims had that ability -- and it was only Brooks surprising skill with a blade that left Gosling wounded.

Still, this was a climactic fight that was satisfying(Brooks dies) and unsatisfying at the same time (the shadows, not SEEING Brooks reaction to dying; Gosling's ambiguous fate), -- a bit too arty for my tastes.

Nonetheless, Albert Brooks in Drive enters the pantheon of great screen "mild mannered psychos." And it is a reminder: our criminal justice system separates out "sane professional criminals" from "insane homicidal psychopaths" but in organized crime, they can be one and the same.

[–] SlackerInc (1101) 2 years ago

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

Yeah, I'm still not sure about that last confrontation but the one where he slashes Cranston's wrist and soothingly assures him "it's okay, it's done" will stick with me for a long time (and then as you say, his lovingly returning the razor blade to his collection of knives).

---

I've reached an age where I don't much remember scenes in movies within a year after seeing them --or remember the plot, even -- but it is a testament to the "staying power" of truly sickening violence on screen that I remember every horrific thing Albert Brooks did in that movie, and especially the interesting shot of his collection of knives. These things 'stay in the brain" -- while also ensuring that Drive lost some audience(people who can't take that kind of gore -- I expect word of mouth got out.)

--

As will Brooks claiming the character is "not a villain"!

---

Ha. Yeah.

I recall that when Marlon Brando played a Nazi in The Young Lions (1958) , he gave an interview many years later where he said that NO villain(even a Nazi, or I suppose, ESPECIALLY a Nazi, who were, after all, serving a cause) thinks they are a villain.

We've had a lot of Mafia shows and movies over the decades, and you tend to get them accepting who they are and what they do in various ways. "This is the profession we've chosen," Hyman Roth says in Godfather II. Or you have Michael Corleone saying to a crooked US Senator in Godfather II "we're all part of the same hypocrisy." (A bit self-serving, that.) Tony Soprano tells his shrink that Mafia men "are soldiers in a war" and equates his murderous ways to what soliders do IN war (kill people.)

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

Of the original Godfather, Marlon Brando in an interview contended that the Mafia was "just another form of capitalism," and that big business was equally ruthless(big business execs wrote OpEds in return: "We don't murder and beat people, and extort.") Brando's point was right but wrong: The Mafia is the capitalism business model as taken up by psychopaths and people who didn't want to make low wages for working hard.

And I'll concede that the Mafia is only one "branch" of criminal activity.

Albert Brooks in Drive is in another branch. As I recall(the Ron Perlman character?)...this may be "Los Angeles Jewish division."

Anyway, they are villains who don't think they are villains but act like villains.

One more point: they once showed Tony Soprano watching the John Wayne Western "Rio Bravo" on TV. That movie is about frontier lawman John Wayne and his deputies against a local land boss and his henchmen.

Did Tony identify with John Wayne(a COP?) or with the bad guys(a gang.) Must have been hard for his brain to twist into identification...

[–] ccr1633 (1523) 2 years ago

My take was that The Driver was somewhat suicidal by this point, in a frame of mind where you're almost inviting death but will fight to survive nonetheless. It seems to me he reached this state progressively throughout the film. In his confrontation with Chris in front of the strippers, he sauntered right into the enemies lair with nothing but a hammer. This sort of risk taking was in line with his fundamental nature (stunt car driving, getaway driver), and he knew he was dealing with a weasel who just talked tough. Still, he could've been more clinical about it and lied in wait for a moment when Chris was alone (not in a club he runs!).

His next takedown of Nino was in some ways riskier and points toward the destination he arrived at with Bernie Rose (Brooks). The Driver didn't need to take Nino out in such a dramatized Hollywood manner, ramming his car down a cliff while donning a mask he took a chance in lifting in the first place (any witnesses could've identified the mask and cops would have traced it back to him). He then stalks Nino - who could've had a gun - down to the beach and seemingly takes pleasure in the slow pursuit and hands-on drowning. By this time The Driver knows that the existence he was envisioning with Irene and Benicio was slipping out of focus. With the life of normalcy and responsibility for others he was moving toward all but over, he reverted back to pure old-brain animalistic predator mode. If he dies protecting Irene and exacting revenge for Shannon, then so what? What else does he have to live for? He was smart enough to know in advance what Bernie told him later, that he had crossed the mob and would be looking over his shoulder the rest of his life. Trying to reconnect with Irene would only put her at risk. He surely knew that Bernie would likely try to kill him. Why then get so close? Because he was a risk taker who at this point invited death without necessarily wanting it realized.

[–] SlackerInc (1101) 2 years ago

Excellent points. I thought when he first took the mask that it was a very clever move to avoid being recognized, but then it never seemed like he did anything he couldn't have equally done unmasked.

[–] Drooch (5333) 2 years ago

Driver: My hands are a little dirty

Bernie: (pauses) So are mine.

One of the greatest movie villains ever. Bernie seems like a charming older gent with a belly, bit of a hustler, a little overbearing but decent and loyal to his friends.

Then he casually stabs an unsuspecting employee in the eye with a fork and sticks a massive kitchen knife into his neck three times like he’s quickly trying to put out a pesky fire.

The shock value is immense, while you’re coping with the gore you’re trying to process the fact that this older guy isn’t the tubby grandfather he appeared, but a stone cold sociopath who is as comfortable with brutal murder as cleaning the leaves from his yard.

His most chilling kill is when he slices open his old friend’s vein and comforts him as he bleeds out:

‘It’s OK, it’s done, it’s over, there’s no pain, it’s over’

That moment still haunts me. Few movie monsters disturb me like cuddly ol’ Bernie.

Winding Refn is one of the few ‘young’ directors I’m still excited about. He has a direct line to the dark side, and can conjure worlds that are as beautiful, dark and strange as something David Lynch might dream up. It’s just a shame he appeared just before Hollywood turned into a complete sewer. I can’t imagine how he’d get an original and brilliant film like Drive made in the current climate of endless superhero sequels and constant tedious woke propaganda pretending to be movies.

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

One of the greatest movie villains ever. Bernie seems like a charming older gent with a belly, bit of a hustler, a little overbearing but decent and loyal to his friends.

Then he casually stabs an unsuspecting employee in the eye with a fork and sticks a massive kitchen knife into his neck three times like he’s quickly trying to put out a pesky fire.

---

"Trying to put out a pesky fire." Nicely stated. There is something personal and petulant about HOW Brooks does the stabbing here.

--

The shock value is immense, while you’re coping with the gore you’re trying to process the fact that this older guy isn’t the tubby grandfather he appeared, but a stone cold sociopath who is as comfortable with brutal murder as cleaning the leaves from his yard.

--

"Cleaning the leaves from his yard." ALSO nicely stated. And again(from my end) here is a movie that tells us a REAL crime boss is often a psychopath, "capable of anything." It would be hard for any of us to SHOOT a victim, let alone stick a fork in their eye and a knife in their throat. Bernie is the worst of the worst, masquerading as a "businessman."

I've sometimes felt that "organzied crime" should be considered "organized psychopaths." Its odd that the criminal justice systems sees gangsters as SANE. A lot of them are NOT. I think Martin Scorsese really showed this with Joe Pesci AND Robert DeNiro in GoodFellas. Both men were animalistic, barely human. No Don Vito elegance and brains.

[–] Drooch (5333) 2 years ago

I’ve often wondered about gangsters, the big question for me is ‘is Tony Soprano a sociopath?’

My instinct is that he isn’t, and that he’s simply from a culture of violence, much like the human cultures that existed before civilisation.

He clearly loves his family and saved his son from drowning. If he didn’t care then he’d have left him to drown. He only kills when he needs to as a matter of survival or protecting his family. He occasionally shows a cruel and sadistic streak toward other gangsters, perhaps the lowest is when he orders Bobby to do his first hit - he steals Bobby’s soul just to spite him.

This is totally different to Tommy in Goodfellas who is a bloodthirsty psychopath who kills people like he’s swatting flies, and has no problem maiming and then killing an innocent teenager who spoke to him the wrong way.

So there’s a spectrum. I think most gangsters are not psychopaths, they’re just brewed in a dog-eat-dog world where violence solves problems, but within that you get the odd Tommy or Nicky who delight in killing.

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

My instinct is that he isn’t, and that he’s simply from a culture of violence, much like the human cultures that existed before civilisation.

---

Given how "firmly" I thought I've derived my theory that many(most) gangsters are psychopaths (or sociopaths, we need psychiatrist to split the difference for us), I find I'm willing to back down pretty quickly in the context of the violent nature of cultures over hundreds of years. Perhaps it was only in the 20th Century that we managed -- in America -- to impose enough law and civilization on the populace that what had once been "normal" -- taking power and gold and women and whatever you wanted -- by force and by war -- was eliminated to the point where that rough activity became "criminal."

On the continuum of modern gangster movies(starting with The Godfather, not with Public Enemy and Little Caesar, we see to have started with the formality and business savvy of the gangsters in The Godfather and then moved on rather rapidly to more 'mad dog" expressions of gansterism --- Scarface(also from the Public Enemy era originally, but here with chainsaw torture and an army being unleased to kill Tony Montana) and then on to Scorsese's 1990 take on 60s/70s gangsters as -- again -- psychopaths(Pesci wide open, DeNiro in his cold scariness) and far more animalistic that Coppola's family business.

Although, talking of animals, it remains telling and historic that the first major murder in The Godfather is of that innocent, expensive HORSE. The placement of that horse's head in a sleeping man's bed with him makes sure to tell us, as early as possible, what gangsters are capable of; it was a shocking "opener" that set the pace for entire movie as to violence.

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

From the roots of The Godfather and Scorsese tougher, nuttier take on gangsters , we then reach The Sopranos, in which showrunner David Chase elects to move the Mafia gangster to New Jersey(a different "flavor" -- outsiders to NYC); to the suburbs, and to present day. Chase -- in a bit of a fantasy, really -- tried to get us to think about the idea of a "typical American family" -- with school plays to attend and parent/teacher meetings and weekend BBQs and old movies on the TV to watch -- being centered around a father who goes out each day to do criminal work, and, occasionally, to kill people.

I always felt a bit of an "echo" in The Sopranos to "real life," in that , so many Americans (men and women alike, though on The Sopranos its only the dad) going out each day into a dog-eat-dog capitalistic world and having to do combative, draining things to make it...only to head back at the end of the day to the hoped-for "peace and quiet" of a night or weekend at home. A LOT of us have jobs that don't involve crime or killing(and hopefully are pretty honestly done) that STILL put us in an arena from which the home is meant to provide solace. As it does for Tony, "housewife" Carmella, high-achieving daughter Meadow, and the sadly dim and irritating AJ.

So with that "suburban family" strain running constantly through the show, Tony Soprano, indeed, looks like the least sociopathic/psychopathic of Mafia guys. During the show's run, he is trying to steer his kids into legit careers(he's sure AJ would simply not make it as a gangster; too soft) and we realize that maybe HE could have gone legit had his father not early on assigned him to murder a bookie to enter the criminal world.

The differences among the gangsters of The Godfather, GoodFellas(and its companion piece Casino, where Pesci is just as psycho,) Scarface and The Sopranos show why this is such an "elastic" genre, with different ways to tell the same tale.

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

(Tony) clearly loves his family and saved his son from drowning. If he didn’t care then he’d have left him to drown.

---

True. These gangsters are "family men." We even had Joe Pesci's pretty psycho Nicky in Casino lovingly preparing a daily breakfast for his little boy.

---

He only kills when he needs to as a matter of survival or protecting his family.

---

Well, certainly "rats" are at the top of his list, from the Witness Protection guy he personally strangles to the close family friends whose murders he orders and/or participates in .SPOILER: (Big Pussy and Adrianna.)

--

He occasionally shows a cruel and sadistic streak toward other gangsters, perhaps the lowest is when he orders Bobby to do his first hit - he steals Bobby’s soul just to spite him.

----

This is sociopathy that perhaps other "not nice" people may have who aren't criminals -- garden variety "bad bosses" -- but Tony's sense of power and entitlement is enlarged in the Mafia world. Bobby made the big mistake of marrying Tony's sister, which at once gives Bobby SOME power but actually puts him too close to Tony. Thus, here, Bobby best Tony in a fight and pays the price.

---

This is totally different to Tommy in Goodfellas who is a bloodthirsty psychopath who kills people like he’s swatting flies, and has no problem maiming and then killing an innocent teenager who spoke to him the wrong way.

---

Yes. To me, the gangster movie has always been grounded in the horror movie, and Tommy is a horror movie figure...hair trigger, merciless, no anger control or MURDER control. (I would add that Scorsese is a rather the moralist among gangster movie makers -- Pesci in GoodFellas and Casino gets killed and most off of the other gangsters do, too.)

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

Speaking of the horror movie, connection, I remember how the paperback bestseller of The Godfather -- which preceded the movie by a few years -- had a blurb on its back cover: 'They use guns, knives...garottes, axes! to enforce their code" All those gory murder weapons...The Godfather(in book form) was sold for horror.

-

So there’s a spectrum. I think most gangsters are not psychopaths, they’re just brewed in a dog-eat-dog world where violence solves problems, but within that you get the odd Tommy or Nicky who delight in killing.--

I'm reminded of a line that Robert Shaw(as the mercenary leader of a group of hijackers) says to EX Mafia man Hector Elizondo in The Taking of Pelhman 123: "I hear you were kicked out of the Mafia for being too much of a loose cannon."

Circling around "on topic," Albert Brooks in Drive emerges, I think, from the psychopath/horror side of the gangster film. And he emerges as a really big SURPRISE. We think we are watching a movie about simple robberies and getaway drives -- a "heist picture" -- and this human monster of a man reveals himself, too late for most everybody when they find out.

[–] Drooch (5333) 2 years ago

Interesting point about gangster movies being a form of horror movie. I’ve always thought that of disaster movies. In all, the central dramatic question is ‘who is going to die horribly next?’

When Pesci is onscreen I’m as nervous as I am watching a movie monster like Mick Taylor from Wolf Creek. Who will be his next victim and how grizzly will be his demise?

As you say, the genius of Bernie in Drive is that a horror icon has suddenly walked into the film, wearing the cuddly grampa character as a skin-suit. Genius move by Winding Refn. He does something similar in The Neon Demon where a movie about vacuous fashion models descends into supernatural horror.

You may have hit upon Refn’s secret...🤔