Look… I respect adults and expect people to be able to consider material like this in a reasonable way.
I do not believe that Drive is an anti-Semitic film. The only really interesting piece of Martin Leaf’s argument is the Jewish star that seems to be the frame of the garage. I have no idea if that is coincidental or not.
But there is something profound and interesting to me, as a critical thinker about films, about this guy’s obsessive interest in the details of this movie. I think, in an odd way, it is a compliment to the movie that he is so convinced.
And the truth is, to me, that Nic Refn decided on these characters being Jews who get their hands dirty, something we haven’t seen much of in movies outside of Once Upon A Time In America, and may well have thought about Kosher ritual as a character element. I’m not offended by that as a Jew. I think it’s kind of brilliant.
I don’t believe in universalizing details in art unless there is a clear intent by the artist for an idea or image to be universal. Clearly not the case here.
Is the Gosling character a Jesus character in this film? I think Refn may have been playing with that. But he is hardly a turn the other cheek dude. And Jesus talked a LOT more than The Driver.
Still, take a look. Not a sophisticated piece of editing. I know it won’t thrill FilmDistrict or others associated with the film to see more stuff being thrown at them. But I find it an interesting intellectual exercise to see how someone sees a piece of work in such a micro way, even when I disagree completely.
And by the way, I think the obsession with the Jewish angle makes clear that the lawsuit’s focus on the ads allegedly invoking Fast & Furious is just a smokescreen for the real issue Mr. Leaf and his client are interested in exposing. A red herring… pickled with lots of schmaltz on some matzoh for Passover…
