MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

More On DRIVE & Anti-Semitism Film Studies

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…

83 Responses to “More On DRIVE & Anti-Semitism Film Studies”

  1. cadavra says:

    Wow, almost hard to tell which side this guy’s on, if there even ARE sides.

    As a Jew, I did not find DRIVE anti-Semitic. Frankly, I get tired of mobsters always being Italian. And ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA was the most brilliant film of the 80s. (And as for Jews getting their hands dirty, let’s not forget THE PRODUCERS! 😀 )

    You wanna see real anti-Semitism, try EIGHT CRAZY NIGHTS. Or, for that matter, most any other Sandler movie. He almost makes me want to convert.

  2. I’m not the biggest fan of Drive, but one of the things I liked was that its villains were Jewish. As a Jew, I want more Jewish characters in films where their Judaism isn’t the defining point of the plot. Who would have thought that the Jeff Goldblum/Judd Hirsch father-son relationship in Independence Day would feel so ground-breaking/revolutionary/etc 16 years later? Just as other minorities want to see themselves onscreen in stories where their minority-status isn’t neccessarily the driving force of the plot or their respective characters (IE – gay characters who don’t constantly talk about being gay), it is weird in an industry that is stereo-typically run by Jews to produce mainstream films that shy away from acknowledging that everyone isn’t automatically Christian. And yes, that goes double for villains. When 300 came out in March 2007, I joked that as a Jew I was offended that Jewish people were not represented in the film’s multi-cultural Rainbow-Coalition of Evil. We constantly write/read essays about how this or that ‘group’ is excluded from mainstream films, but you all-but never hear that complaint about Jewish characters. Maybe it’s because of the above-noted perception. But I’m glad Albert Brooks and Ron Perlman’s characters in Drive were Jewish. Hell, even if there was some anti-Semitic conspiracy, I still think they are cool.

  3. Foamy Squirrel says:

    I’m hoping to see a re-emergence of Mr Leaf to defend his lawsuit on the blog. 😉

  4. The question of whether or not the movie is anti-Semitic is ridiculously obvious. An anti-Semitic film is a manifestation of Jew hatred. All one has to do to be convinced of the movie’s Jew hatred, is just read the book Drive. In the book, the Jews are actually depicted in a positive way. Especially Bernie Rose. Had the film stuck to that portrayal, the Rose character could have generated an academy award role.

    Also, comparing Drive to Jud Suss, and The Eternal Jew makes the anti-Semitism even more trenchant.

    Nino was Italian in the book.

    Who takes a book, today, and then modifies it to make it racist? It is the other way around. Huckleberry Fin for example, no “N” word.

    There is not one Nazi anti-Semitic stereotype NOT included in Drive. Once Upon A Time In America was not anti-Semitic because the Jews in the movie were real humans, not cartoon one-dimensional evil. I defy anyone to stump me on a Nazi stereotype not in Drive, and I have confirmed this with the leading expert on Nazi anti-Semitic propaganda.

    I do not believe The Passion Of The Christ Was anti-Semitic. Miriam aka Mary was Jewish last time I checked. Besides, Christians believe that is what happened so it does not follow the story is a manifestation of Jew hatred.

    The lawsuit is based on misleading advertising. The real purpose of the movie Drive is to get people to dislike Jews, using a subtle but sustained message throughout the film. Subtle anti-Semitism is more effective for American audiences right now, than overt.

    Countless millions of dollars are spent per year on Jew hatred http://www.memri.org. As the world is ramping up for a possible war with Iran, money is being spent to make Americans question American blood and treasure for Israel or “the Jews”.

    The people behind the Jew hatred in Drive probably expected to make a clean getaway. Maybe they did not figure that one of the few people to decode “No Country for Old Men” was watching.

    Incidentally, since Drive is shown in foreign countries, if it is anti-Semitic, it must be reported to congress in accordance with the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act.

    BTW, the legal arguments in our ongoing lawsuit, are clearly the stronger arguments. Misleading advertising has never been accorded First Amendment protection (see in re RMJ) , and neither has subliminal : Gilmer v Buena Vista.
    Anyways, wwww.kosherslaughter.com will allow you to be the Judge.

  5. Foamy Squirrel says:

    MY PRAYERS HAVE BEEN ANSWERED!

    ETA: I think it’s very clever of you to name the site Koshers Laughter to indicate it is a parody site.

  6. JS Partisan says:

    The real purpose of Drive is to waste the talents of Kristina Hendricks! THAT WINDING BASTARD!

  7. David Poland says:

    Wait… the Coen Bros are anti-Semites too?

  8. cadavra says:

    Foamy’s ETA FTW!

  9. NCFOM is an abstraction about Islamic Terror actually. It does not condemn the Islamic religion and is not racist.

    Refn borrowed heavily from NCFOM in that the surface movie “is just a shell. It’s whats under the surface that counts”, as Bernie Rose would say.

  10. Eldrick says:

    wasn’t Sam Rostein in Casino jewish? anyway, as a non Jew its not my place to comment.

  11. Paul D/Stella says:

    “In the book, the Jews are actually depicted in a positive way. Especially Bernie Rose.”

    That’s a book. Since when is a film required to portray its villains in a positive way? How many films lack three-dimensional villains? Your long post above reads like something one would read in The Onion.

  12. David Poland says:

    And sometimes, a banana is just a banana, Martin.

  13. SamLowry says:

    …except when someone leaves a box of condoms in the middle of a banana display.

    They hardly ever do that with cucumbers–maybe they have a fear of a green planet.

  14. One of the big clues to the real meaning of the movie, is the turtle on the lower left window of Nino’s. I wonder if anyone else figured out what that meant?

  15. SamLowry says:

    They’ll wax your car while you wait?

  16. Don R. Lewis says:

    Martin-
    That was BAR NONE one of the dumbest attempts at reading a film I’ve ever seen. EVER. Keep in mind I have a Masters in Cinema Studies and read countless undergrad papers. I have seen the Kubrick doc ROOM 237 as well as the DVD about how Kubrick faked the moon landing and congrats, you have won the battle.

    Every single thing you point out in the film is not only highly refutable but it’s also highly speculative on your behalf. There’s also simple, blatant non-truths. The song “Oh My Love” is not anti-aparitheid at all. The Jewish star in the garage- and in fact many of the things you point out- could just as easily be pointed at as Masonic and your claims herein border on the same obsessive, conspiracy based nonsense as the rantings of those who think the Masons are evil doers.

    In closing, your attempts at film criticism (or, whatever it is) remind me of a letter Charles Bukowski wrote to a library who sought to censor his work due to discrimination against minorities. The section he writes here rings very true:
    “If I write badly about blacks, homosexuals and women it is because of these who I met were that. There are many “bads”–bad dogs, bad censorship; there are even “bad” white males. Only when you write about “bad” white males they don’t complain about it. And need I say that there are “good” blacks, “good” homosexuals and “good” women?”

    Entire letter here: http://www.lettersofnote.com/2011/10/charles-bukowski-on-censorship.html

    I’m sure I’m feeding a troll or starting an argument with a whack job that will likely never end nor result in anyone changing anyone’s mind but what you’ve done with your “work” is silly and a disservice to real film critique. Nice font though, what’s it called? “Bloody Borscht?”

  17. I guess I should be in awe of a “masters in film studies”, but I am not. Your “masters in film studies” is largely worthless because it wouldn’t help you recognize Kosher slaughter for example, now would it ? Or Kabbalah, would it ? Or anything else placed in a movie that requires specialized knowledge, outside generic things they study in “masters in film study”.

    Did you see the film Goodbye Uncle Tom ? It is an anti-apartheid film, made in the 70’s, depicting black slavery in America. Or did they not teach you how to make that big of an intellectual leap from American slavery in the antebellum South, depicted in 1970, to mistreatment of blacks by law during that time in S. Africa (1970’s)?

    So tell me, which Nazi anti-Semitic stereotype is not depicted in the movie, besides your vague examples of the papers you graded, and some irrelevant letter.

    If I was so obsessed wouldn’t I be finding anti-Semitism in other American films ? I have said there isn’t any. But there will be. Drive may be the first, but it will not be the last.

    You really cannot comment on Drives anti-Semitism until you have read the book “Drive”, and have seen Jud Suss, and The Eternal Jew.
    It would be like saying George Harrison’s “My Sweet Lord”, is or is not similar to “He’s So Fine”, without having heard both songs.

    Finally, the pink cursive font is from some of Drive’s promotional materials. If you were more observant, that “masters of film” might have become a PhD in film studies.

  18. Don R. Lewis says:

    Martin-
    What makes you think I haven’t read the book? What makes you think I didn’t see JEW SUSS when it was on TCM last month? What makes you think you know anything about how to look at and/or dissect a film other than to cast aspersions upon it with half-baked concoctions of meanings that are not only false and non-exsistant but also really, really silly?

    In short: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AS8X2Qp_6aA

    I hope Film District countersues you for defamation of character before the whole suit gets dismissed as frivolous.

  19. Jud Suss, the Nazi version 1940, cannot be shown in the United States or anywhere else in the world legally, without special permission of the German Gov. I bought a DVD of it from Historic Films Company out of Chicago

    Terra FilmKunst assets are owned by the German Government, including Judd Suss.

    But you can watch it on youtube.

    Now back to the question Grandpa Lewis. Name a Nazi stereotype NOT in Drive.

  20. Monco says:

    Break down NCFOM in more detail please.

  21. JS Partisan says:

    This is a WGAS, WGAF situation. Seriously.

  22. NCFOM is about the eternal enemy of the Jews according to Kaballah: Amalek. That is why the tree of life and tree of knowledge are both where the money is found, with the dead man lying against the Tree of Knowledge in a reverential position, palms facing up, head to the side. That is why the bad guy dissolves into the Tree of Life which forms the backdrop and key to Bell’s dream, which everyone missed.

    Amalek appears from time to time to confront the Jews: Last generation it was the Nazis, today Islamic Terror. If you look carefully, there is an abstract painting totally out of place in Chigur’s room, which shows the twin towers burning.

    The disappearance of Chigurh from the Desert Sands motel, is straight out of Kaballah, when King Saul captured Agog, the Amalek King, and Agog was able to disappear using magic.

    And of course there is a ton more, all consistent with the above.

    But of course, without knowledge of that kind of stuff, how could one figure that movie out ?

  23. JS Partisan says:

    You can see what you want to see when you want to see it, and you want to see what you want to see in it.

  24. Yancy Skancy says:

    Nazi stereotypes not in DRIVE:

    Goosestepping
    Hitler salutes
    Actual Nazis

  25. palmtree says:

    I remember a Q&A a while back with a famous production designer, and he was getting very detailed questions from cinephiles who connected a license plate number seen in one of his films to the story’s underlying theme somehow or something to that effect. And of course, the production designer said it wasn’t the intention. But I’m sure that license plate was still just as meaningful for that cinephile dude even though it wasn’t true.

  26. There are directors that make each frame or scene like a classic painting, with a ton of meaning and symbolism. If there is that much effort to show and tell a certain story, the director would want people to analyse the images to extract and reconstitute what was intended.

    I think Refn went to that effort, and he is that kind of director, like the Coen bros can be, and like Alejandro Jodorowsky (Santa Sangre).

    There is such a fear to do that kind of analysis, especially the popular film critics, and regrettably the vast majority of Los Angeles film goers, that the depth of Drive is largely unnoticed.

  27. Don R. Lewis says:

    So according to Marty Leaf, the Coen’s are strictly responsible of NCFOM and McCarthy’s literary imagery added nothing. The tree was strictly added by the Coens. Intriguing….

  28. Triple Option says:

    Normally I refrain from feeding trolls but since this is in line w/the topic of the thread, I guess that’s the point. Though I appreciate Monco’s subtle attempt to poke a stick through the bars, I have to point out that when David was asking about the Coens being anti-Semites he wasn’t even referring to No Country. Someone w/such superior film insight as the one trying to educate the masses on overt yet hidden symbolism in film should have been aware of this reference from the start.

    Three issues I wonder if you would answer?
    What was your relationship to the plaintiff prior to the suit being filed and how did you come to represent her in the matter?

    If someone were to accuse you of exhibiting signs of paranoia, what would you do to dispute those claims?

    How many lawsuits have you filed that have been involuntarily dismissed by judge (both with and without prejudice)?

  29. The case of bait and switch is really trivially obvious. Even the Iranian screenwriter said in his interview:

    “They are opening in America, terrifyingly wide,” he says. “A big, wide audience is going to think they are going to see a mainstream picture. It’s great in some ways, but I think there is inevitably going to be a backlash, as it is still very indie.

    “The first 45 minutes, which I love … if you are going to see Drive thinking it will be like The Fast and the Furious, you are in for a disappointment.”

    http://www.thenational.ae/arts-culture/film/hossein-amini-how-i-coped-with-adapting-the-book-drive-for-hollywood#full

    The anti-Semitism does not even require any brains, all it requires is to read the book, and then mechanically compare the descriptions in the book of each character, to their depiction in the movie.

    For each character, there is a strong unambiguous anti-Semitic transformation from the book to the movie.

    For the Disney subliminal lawsuit, there was far less subliminal content in each film, then there was in Drive. The Judge ruled in that case that subliminal does not get the same First Amendment protection, it would otherwise have. Drive’s content was subliminal hatred of Jews, a first.

    David, with all due respect, when you questioned Refn about the Kosher, you were laughing about that in your question. Not exactly objective. And now you think that there may be something to that?

    http://moviecitynews.com/2011/12/dp30-drive-director-nicolas-winding-refn/

    *****Go to the 26:30 mark*******

    I guarantee you, if it was Islam being treated in the same manner in a film, as Judaism was in Drive, there would already have been deaths.

  30. David Poland says:

    Martin – I am happy to offer you a place to engage your ideas about this with a thoughtful readership. But you and I are not in agreement on this.

    The bottom line, in my eyes, of your feelings are… someone made two middle-aged Jews into scary, nasty, funny violent criminals. If Michael Madsen in Reservoir Dogs or Tom Sizemore in Heat were wearing Jewish stars, you would likely start unearthing reasons why those films were anti-Semetic. I know you will disagree with this, but neither of us can prove his case, as neither character was overtly Jewish.

    In order for your position here to be correct, Refn had to sneak it past Albert Brooks. I don’t think that happened.

    Also, if half of what you think about this film is true… so what? There are ethnic, racial, and sexual stereotypes in films released pretty much every week. And as Jews, we are above it?

    You know, some Jews are greedy. Some are mean. Some hate other ethnicities. Etc, etc, etc. I will not forget the Jewish Holocaust. I do not forget that my bloodline makes me The Other for many people in my country.

    But our survival, as a culture, is not about whining about the rarest of dramatic embodiments… so rare, you have to refer to decades old films to find connection. It’s about moving past offense like the hard ass, cockroaches who will survive a nuclear blast (not offering an idea to Iran) that we have been for thousands of years.

    Sadly, in what I believe to be an earnest effort on your part to make a statement about something you see as a wrong, you are building another stereotype of The Jew as overly litigious, manipulating the system, and demanding to get what we want.

    And as I feel about the rest, I think if you sincerely believe in all of this, you should proceed and fight the fight, just as any American can and should. And if you or your client end up paying FilmDistrict’s legal fees for filing a frivolous lawsuit, so be it. Be tough. Move forward. Seek the highest truth you know.

  31. anghus says:

    maybe i don’t understand this lawsuit.

    lets just say for argument that Drive is anti-semetic.

    Is it against the law for a company to release an anti-semetic film? Maybe i should read the complaint.

    I will say i found that video fascinating. Whether the stuff was actually intended or whether or not someone looked real hard and found stuff to match their pre-existing theory, it’s at a minimum intellectually curious.

  32. First, it is not a frivolous lawsuit.I have many affidavits and letters, which I will post, which confirm the basis for the anti-Semitism charge. And misleading advertising is actionable according to the US Supreme Court.

    But again, here is the point. Jewish individuals can and should be portrayed as evil, just like individuals from any other group. No problem there. It is when the movie is a message of hate against Jews and Judaism, and falsely advertised, and subliminal, that the line is crossed.

    I have not met a single person, that has reviewed the relevant facts that is NOT convinced that this movie is evil, setting aside the legal arguments.

    What makes this movie so actionable is that it IS comparable to something that has not been done since Jud Suss. I think it is more effective than Jud Suss.

    Here in Detroit, we buried our heads in the sand when we put out cars that were inferior and dangerous. It was only when we took a good hard look at our product, that we started to respond.

    You want to market a hate film as a mainstream race action film, go right ahead. In the long run, it only hurts Hollywood, as well as the intended “collateral damage”.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92iMeVVvIjY&feature=related

  33. Paul D/Stella says:

    As anghus mentioned, even if Drive is anti-Semitic, is that in and of itself a crime? Couldn’t one argue that there is a subliminal message in every film ever made, if one really wanted to? It’s all open to interpretation.

    If not, and the issue is misleading advertising, so what? Studios have to sell the movie. It would hardly be the first time people complained about misleading advertising. The Grey is another recent example. You make something appear a little more mainstream/conventional to get people in the seats. It might be annoying, but is that really criminal? Should someone be preparing a suit against Open Road?

    Are you really suggesting with a straight face that the filmmakers intentionally made an anti-Semitic film, and that the studio knew this and chose to advertise it as a Fast & Furious-type action flick to swindle mass audiences into paying to see anti-Semitic propaganda?

    Plus, I love that an attorney is using the anecdotal “every person I talked to is convinced that I am right” argument. Rock solid in a court of law.

  34. René says:

    Oh no. This lawsuit reminds of the state where I grew up: East germany, in the seventies and eighties. The government there tried to find many absurd ways to suppress interesting art – and it didn’t’ care how far fetched they were.
    I never thought that Drive would be a film about Jews in general. Not even for a moment.
    I don’t think that Scorsese directs movies about Italians in general. I don’t think that Twin Peaks is a TV series about American people in general. And that’s why I think that this whole lawsuit here is on the wrong side of morality.
    Shame on you for trying to suppress a piece of art.

  35. Who said anything about “suppressing” a piece of Art ? Drive can be shown to any consenting adult. Misleading advertising and subliminal content obviate the “consenting” part.

    And yes, an attorney has to “talk to people”, to make sure there is a factual basis for the complaint. In this case, the anti-Semitic content.

  36. Paul D/Stella says:

    So, again, are you really suggesting with a straight face that the filmmakers intentionally made an anti-Semitic film, and that the studio knew this and chose to advertise it as a Fast & Furious-type action flick to swindle mass audiences into paying to see anti-Semitic propaganda?

    Is that your case?

  37. René says:

    Paul and Martin: That’s what I meant too when I wrote about far fetched reasons for a lawsuit. And I still see a lawsuit like this as a way to suppress art.
    The solution in Martins interest would be like this: Next time someone’s directing a movie he should think of all the crazy ways other people could read their own problems into his work. And so he will give up before he even starts to direct.
    On a side note: over here in germany I see many movies by American directors who portrait their own folks as violent, greedy and thoughtless. Did you ever think about analyzing all of them, Martin, for being anti-American?

  38. Paul:

    The movie stands on its own as either being anti-Semitic or not. Anyone can see it, look at the comparative materials (the book, and Jud Suss, The Eternal Jew) and judge for themselves.

    THE WRITER ADMITTED THE MISLEADING ADVERTISING.

    Rene:

    The trailers usually show the violence and violent Americans you pointed out. And people know that films have often portrayed Americans in a negative light, it happens all the time.

    Ironically, if Jews are always or frequently portrayed in an anti-Semitic way, one will not be able to sue on the basis of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act because the movie has to be something one was not expecting, and could not reasonably find out about in advance.

    There are countries where that is the case already.

  39. René says:

    @Martin: I think I’m giving up. I have to admit that I don’t get your reasoning.

  40. Paul D/Stella says:

    So what if he did Martin. Misleading advertising is nothing new and he is not the first person in the business to acknowledge its existence. Isn’t any judge with half a brain going to be aware of the fact that Hollywood’s past is littered with examples of misleading advertising?

  41. OK. So you get your money back for the misleading advertising ? And I am not talking about not showing everything, but true intentional misleading advertising in order to “fill the theater”.

  42. christian says:

    This might be the single dumbest argument in the recent history of film.

  43. Paul D/Stella says:

    Did she just ask the theater for her money back? Doesn’t that make more sense than a lawsuit?

  44. René says:

    The funny thing is: Drive was far more interesting than the trailer had suggested. Usually it’s the other way.

  45. christian says:

    And since the only interesting, semi-developed human being in DRIVE is the Jew….

  46. Here is another thought. How come Drive has no alcohol drinking and sex in it ? (The one scene in the dressing room can have the nudity blurred out).

    What countries was Drive marketed to, that hate Jews, that don’t allow alcohol or sex ?

    PS. The book sure had a lot of alcohol. A lot.

  47. Paul D/Stella says:

    Wasn’t Drive marketed to a lot of countries? Isn’t alcohol consumed at the party for Standard after his release from prison? That is really stretching it, even for you.

    According to one site that features reviews for families, two or three topless women are in view for a long time, and supporting characters are seen drinking. That seems to contradict your claim above.

    The book is often very different from the film. Two totally different beasts.

  48. You are right. Standard takes a sip of the beer, after the toast. I think that is the only actual drinking in the movie. I think.

    I don’t know if that was edited out, just the very last part where he sips, or if it even had to be edited out, in those countries.

  49. anghus says:

    The one part of this i can’t logic is everyone’s involvement. Let’s concede that the movie is anti-semitic for the sake of argument. Does that mean the Director, the Production Designer, the Writer, and the main talent involved were somehow aware of all this and fine with the concept of making a hate piece?

    As someone who’s made a few movies i gotta say that the argument is difficult to digest knowing just how many people would have to be involved in order to make all these shots and visual cues a reality.

    Unless your argument is that everybody knew. At what level of production did the knowledge of crafting an Anti-Semitic subtext stop? Did the Writer and Director know but the actors did not?

    That’s the part i’d need help with.

  50. George Prager says:

    Rose has a drink at his house after killing Bryan Cranston. And then there is the matter of Nino’s party.

  51. Triple Option says:

    Hey, it’s April 2nd, when’s the April Fools tag showing up on this thread?

    Man, if I wasn’t having a hard time getting into the flow of work on a Monday morning, I swear I would be done with this! Mr Leaf’s argument reminds me of the word search games I used to play as a kid. (I’d still play them now if they were easy to find). You know those grids of letters where you have to circle the words? Leaf’s posts are just like the ones from elementary school that we’d crack up over whenever we found the inadvertent “ass” or “dam” written in. Here’s the phrase that pays that I’ve yet to see that I would think would be key to a lawsuit of such a nature. (As if lack of proof on any previous point isn’t enough to have this thrown out.) “Pattern of behavior.” Without establishing the defendants in this suit continuously engage in a practice of willful deceit, a one-off occurrence would hardly be worth the court’s time. Don’t say that no one warned you.

    Are you handling this case pro bono?

  52. I don’t understand why all these tangential issues are brought up here. I have yet to see anyone explain why the book was transformed from a philo-Semitic book, or at least a non-anti-Semitic book,to a movie that had the Jews embody a wide range of anti-Semitic stereotypes. That is the observation of the leading expert on Nazi anti-Semitic propaganda, as well as many other people.

    Take the Chinese eating scene at Nino’s. In the book, Rose is this majestic guy that everyone likes, even Driver. The movie transforms Rose in that scene, into a whining, complaining, demanding, pushy, self centered Jew, with a Brooklyn twang voice, that is different than his voice in the rest of the film.

    That is just one of the many many transformations from the book to the movie that cannot be explained other than someone that really really hated Jews.

    The rest is just tangential, like who knew what and when.

    Here is a more detailed description of Brooks as the perfect “Kike”, which IS worthy of an award, and his name on a car.

    http://kosherslaughter.com/?page_id=488

  53. Triple Option says:

    Only the author of the book can sue if a movie is not faithful to the original manuscript and that’s if, and a huge IF, the book author has any sort of creative rights to the film. Most do not. Even those who do, it’s still hard to prove. Maybe you can ask Clive Cussler out to lunch and explain this to you. Just a heads up, he’s probably going to need you to pay.

    You as a third party have no claim to the films’ adaptation of a book.

    OK, now, is your client single? Does she like to travel? I’m sensing some daddy issues and maybe a bit of a hanger on. Think she’d spring for me to be a travel companion and go on a cruise to Mexico? I’ve never been. Could be a good time to see some whales and turtles.

  54. Don R. Lewis says:

    Anyone else starting to feel the *real* issue here is that DRIVE was adapted by the screen by a guy named Hossein Amini? An Iranian? Anyone? Anyone? Also Martin….on your website you spell the directors name as “Nikolas Winding Refn” which seems to put an odd, subversive spin on his personal background since he spells his name “Nicholas.”

  55. christian says:

    Martin Leaf is insane. And debating with the insane makes you…ohmygod. I’M INSANE!

  56. A perfect example of the lengths of Hatred is the picture where Rose is talking to Driver, and all you see of Rose is his ring and his watch. The garage doors(both) and the car hood add to the subliminal Jewish star. Not an accident, considering everything else.

    I have the pic in this section towards the bottom:

    http://kosherslaughter.com/?page_id=253

  57. Popcorn Slayer says:

    “In order for your position here to be correct, Refn had to sneak it past Albert Brooks. I don’t think that happened.”

    He’d also have had to get it past Ron Perlman, who’s no dummy. And to top it all off, IIRC Refn himself is Jewish.

    The one good thing I’ve taken from this conversation is that I want to see DRIVE again. I felt it was the most impressive marriage of form and content that I saw last year.

  58. palmtree says:

    So Martin Leaf is saying all movie trailers should look like this:

    http://youtu.be/0gugBiEkLwU

  59. Yancy Skancy says:

    I think I may have mentioned this before, but if misleading advertising is objectionable, then I want to see lawsuits for every film ad that trumpets “Critics agree!”

  60. Paul D/Stella says:

    Has Martin mentioned that a judge dismissed the lawsuit more than a month ago?

    http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120301/METRO02/203010460

    Some excerpts:

    Judge Daniel P. O’Brien found there were no material findings that “Drive” violated provisions of the Michigan Protection Act and “even if I allowed there was anti-Semitic” material, the film would be allowable under the First Amendment’s free-speech protections.

    “This lawsuit is based on subjective opinion, not facts … there are no explicitly misleading statements in the trailer and no basis for the claim,” Alan Friedman, an attorney for the defendants, told O’Brien.

    As for the film’s content, Friedman said: “Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. People see things differently.”

    Friedman, while not admitting the film contains anti-Semitic messages, said even if it did, the work would be allowable under First Amendment protections involving art.

  61. I put up the Judge’s opinion in the lawsuit section, as soon as it was announced. The case is far from over. First, we are filing our motion for reconsideration. Second, either way it is going to the court of appeals. If we win, it will go there, and if they win it will go there.

    The Court of Appeals allows for precedent either way.

    The Judge stated that a trailer that omits anti-Semitism, assuming it is present in the film, cannot tend to deceive or mislead, if the trailer provides other content in the film. We disagree because that is obviously false, and also that is a Jury question (ie factual matter).

    Second, First Amendment does not apply because the action is based on the advertising, and misleading advertising can be regulated. Which is the basis for the suit, and the Michigan Consumer Protection Act.
    See In Re RMJ http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=455&invol=191

    Under the “Commercial Speech Doctrine,” a state may totally prohibit misleading advertising and may impose restrictions if the particular content or method
    of advertising is inherently misleading or if experience demonstrates that the advertising is
    subject to abuse. In re R.M.J., 102 S.Ct. 929, 937 (1982). If the content of the advertisement is
    not misleading, the state may regulate it only when there is a substantial government interest
    being served. Id. However, the state may place reasonable restrictions upon the time, place, and
    manner of lawyer advertising, so long as the content or subject matter is not regulated. See,
    Bates, 97 S.Ct. at 2709.

    Third, the subliminal content has never been accorded First Amendment protection (See . http://www.suffolkiplicensing.org/index.php?title=Gilmer_v._Buena_Vista )

    The Judge did not go with the “opinion” defense put forward by Defendants.

  62. Don R. Lewis says:

    Did the filmmakers of DRIVE build the garage that features the star of David on the door or was that just a strange coincidence?

  63. Paul D/Stella says:

    So clearly you don’t know when to say when. If you win. Jesus that’s hysterical.

  64. Popcorn, with all due respect, that is a tangential argument. Kind of like “How could a child murder their parents”, etc… The film is what it is. Is Refn Jewish, is Lars Von Trier, is Oliver Stone ? We know what Von Trier said, and also Oliver Stone.

    I personally like Von Trier, and believed he was joking about Hitler. And the Germans as a group are not to blame, because no one knows how anyone would have acted in those circumstances (ie would you hide someone if they were going to murder your family if caught).

    Again, anyone that reviews the book, the film, and the Nazi movies Jud Suss, and The Eternal Jew, can decide for themselves. I think the anti-Semitism is painfully obvious. The subliminal, despite what Dave thinks, is merely icing on the cake.

    And yes, Refn is very very smart, despite saying he is “not that clever”.

  65. Paul

    For me, Drive is like 9-11 in the sense that something evil that has never been done before was done: A mainstream movie whose primary purpose was to deliver a message of hate.

    Is that something to be ignored ?

  66. Don:

    To me it does not really matter. Refn knows what he is seeing in the viewfinder. Is it a big fat coincidence that Brooks tell Shannon the same argument used to justify Kosher slaughter currently being argued in Scandanavia, (ie painless quick etc..), and uses the same kind of knife (straight edge razor), and then the film shows him washing it and then putting it in a case ?
    All associated with Kosher, all done by an evil Jew , all coincidence?

    Consider all the gold tones in that scene, and the fact that a GTO (the glowing car in the scene) is called a goat, which was sacrificed in addition to a lamb.

    You know of a murderer that puts back the murder weapon, especially one that would have left a distinctive wound that could be matched for forensics ?

    To me, it is pathetically obvious.

    Oh, and Don, check out the picture in the sublimation section of my site, where Brooks is talking to Driver: Notice the car hood, and the garage door that is open combine to form a subliminal Jewish star, with of course that darn gold pinky ring and watch, which just so happens to make its way into the frame whenever possible.

  67. Don R. Lewis says:

    Yeah…I saw that. I think it’s a Masonic symbol so my lawsuit directed at DRIVE is pending.

  68. One more thing: There is tremendous market potential in movies or videos that show Jews being murdered because they are Jews. Thats why there will be many more movies like Drive regardless of the outcome of the lawsuit.
    The murderer in Toulouse was filming the murders of the children for that very reason. And the murders of Daniel Pearl and Nick Berg were viewed by countless ecstatic viewers.
    Bottom line: There is a ton of money to be made in this filth, I mean “art”.

  69. HISTORY IN THE MAKING

    The 2008 report to Congress on anti-Semitism, required by law, indicated that anti-Semitism is an adaptive phenomenon (go to page 4). http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/102301.pdf

    In Drive, we are witnessing something like the aids virus, a new, ingenious, subtle but deadly package, that has adapted to the target audience.

    I think it is truly amazing!!!!!

  70. christian says:

    And the fact that DRIVE smashed box office records across America, igniting an obvious new wave of anti-Semitism in college students and film buffs as demonstrated in the failure of Woody Allen’s MIDNIGHT IN PARIS, speaks for itself. My lawsuit is pending.

  71. Martin Leaf says:

    Christian:

    Is your lawsuit based on the fact that too few Jews were murdered by a skinhead, to glorious uplifting music, as you were hoping for ?

  72. christian says:

    Being half-Jewish, my self-loathing wasn’t fully sated.

  73. storymark says:

    Wait…. Leaf is for real? I thought this was some brilliant act of satire. Wow.

  74. Don R. Lewis says:

    you should sue him for the way he mislead you, storymark.

  75. storymark says:

    LOL! Great idea!

  76. christian says:

    There’s a pretty great story behind that Martin. And actually, to be truthful, I’d be considered a full Jewish dude if not for the total agnosticism of my family.

    But I love Albert Brooks, even as the Jewish Villain in DRIVE. And I’m suing you Martin for anti-semitism against my perceived anti-semitism.

  77. Had Brooks played the Bernie Rose in the book, he would have been a shoo in, for the academy award.

    They cannot give the award to an actor with a whining Jewish twang at Nino’s and then this tough guy voice later.

    But we gave him an award for Best Portrayal of a Kike in a Major Motion picture.

    http://www.kosherslaughter.com/http://kosherslaughter.com/?page_id=488

    Dave Poland is getting an award also.

  78. J-P says:

    Martin Leaf you are an absolute moron. PLAIN AND SIMPLE. I’ve read many of your comments and your blog from other pages and all I have to say is, ENJOY THE MOVIE for what it’s worth. You’re more likely to find hidden meaning’s in Kubrick’s work then in Drive.

    If what you’re saying is “true” my brother, sister and I all should be able to sue the movie theater from way back when White Chicks was playing because it was packed with people and we sat on the floor. Misleading advertisements have been used in all aspects of our modern culture to persuade folks to buy goods and services. By your standards Uwe Boll should be sued a million times over for all his “films”, Dead Island player’s should be able to sue for their misleading game trailer and Duke Nukem Forever players as well for a horrible game.

    But we DON’T because we aren’t that idiotic and brainless. Look stop searching so much in media to “support your case”. Facts are your client made a bad choice, and she refuses to accept it, so she blames the movie for being “antisemitic” and “misleading”. I watched Drive a couple times and I have to say it fit’s with the story. A newish idea that isn’t used as much as say Italian’s or Russian’s Mafia, but still worked. As everyone has said ALMOST ALL CHARACTERS are GREY. It’s what makes the film more humanistic and believable. I’ve known people involved in organized crime and all I can say is what we’ve seen in some of the best mob flicks has been very true; minus a few details. I think what you’re trying to say is instead the characters are STEREOTYPICAL and the story doesn’t promote ANTISEMITISM.

    Actually you could say that the director of Holy Rollers is “antisemitic” because the characters are ALL Jewish and DRUG DEALERS; ie “BAD” PEOPLE Do you see how stupid your “appeal” is. If this actually goes through eventually, I’ve lost all faith and hope in humanity.

    I honestly got bored of Lord of the Flies novel, but enjoyed the movie a bit more. Same with A Clockwork Orange, does it make it a bad film because it isn’t “true” to the novel? NOT IN THE SLIGHTEST, that’s why they’re called ADAPTATIONS dude.

    I know this is late, but I think my points are still relevant.

    Lesson of this whole debacle, don’t trust media purchasing based on trailers and biased reviews. Shop around for the overall opinion and then make your choice. Or better yet, especially with gaming and film have a materialistic approach to the experience until you purchase/view it as in only know the title. Some of the best work I’ve seen has been based solely on that principal.

    It’s all about the context. I rather enjoy my “art-films” with the “misleading” trailers then watch the borefest that is Battleship or whatever the latest Bay inspired mainstream garbage is playing. I enjoy talent, not just sex appeal and lack of intellect.

    If we’re discussing messed up movies with no meaning we should discuss Eraserhead.

    Oh yeah why wasn’t Casino sued? Sam “Ace” Rothstein is another grey guy or the Jewish diamond dealers in GTA IV? By your allegations they support “hatred”, so where is the lawsuit?

  79. Leah says:

    Okay, clearly whoever made this is video is suffering some sort of paranoid mental illness. This person and all Jewish people who see Drive as anti-semitic are clearly just Jewish people who have gotten so used to seeing themselves as saints, and the upper class or the affable comedic character they are totally blindsided by seeing villains who are of the Jewish variety. Every other people have been villified by Hollywood but Jewish people and that is because the people who decide what gets made and what we see and read are Jewish. And that is the truth.

  80. toomuchmommy says:

    1. Martin is Overfunded. I honestly feel some Jews literally hate the
    easy money they make? Who funded this lawsuit?

    2. Yes, just because you become a Doctor, or Lawyer, or a Hollywood
    insider–taking money from the poor, and middle class is still wrong.
    Your tribe just doesn’t understand the concept.

    3. Just because you make money legally, dosen’t mean the rest
    of us think you’re a swell group of dudes. Oh yea, the networking
    you people do is beyond nauseating–place of worship?

    4. Yes–people do talk about Jews, and the “way they make their
    money”. I’m only talking about American Jews. Isralies do not
    act like American Jews. In fact, most honest Isralies dislike American
    Jews. They won’t tell you, but I’ve heard what they say in private.

  81. Martin H. Leaf says:

    Hey toomuchmommy. I guess you do not mind being the “queball” drive intends you to be. And Dave, there are a lot more toomuchmomys out there feeding their kids the milk of Jew hatred.

    Which means that things are pretty much normal.

  82. Jonathan says:

    While I may not agree with it, anti-semitism is not illegal. We do and should have full freedom of speech to say whatever we want to say outside of the obvious yelling fire in a theater or bomb on an airplane. Remember when the Jewish community was so convinced Passion of the Christ would invoke a wave of anti-semitism and lead to attacks on the Jewish people? Yeah, that never materialized. Just deal with the fact that we still have some freedoms in this country, including the first amendment. We can never be punished for speaking our mind – our thoughts cannot be policed regardless of how vile some thoughts might be. Otherwise, any opponent of the ruling party would be in serious danger.

The Hot Blog

Stella's Boy on: BYOBlog

movieman on: BYOBlog

Hcat on: BYOBlog

movieman on: BYOBlog

leahnz on: BYOBlog

movieman on: BYOBlog

movieman on: BYOBlog

leahnz on: BYOBlog

Stella's Boy on: BYOB - RIP The Goldfinch

Stella's Boy on: BYOBlog

Quote Unquotesee all »

“Well, actually, of that whole group that I call the post-60s anti-authority auteurs, a lot of them came from television. Peckinpah’s the only one whose television work represents his feature work. I mean, like the only one. Mark Rydell can direct a really good episode of ‘Gunsmoke’ and Michael Ritchie can direct a really good episode of ‘The Big Valley,’ but they don’t necessarily look like The Candidate. But Peckinpah’s stuff, even the scripts he wrote that he didn’t even direct, have a Peckinpah feel – the way I think there’s a Corbucci West – suggest a Peckinpah West. That even in his random episodes that he wrote for ‘Gunsmoke’ – it’s right there.”
~ Quentin Tarantino

“The thought is interrupted by an odd interlude. We are speaking in the side room of Casita, a swish and fairly busy Italian bistro in Aoyama – a district of Tokyo usually so replete with celebrities that they spark minimal fuss. Kojima’s fame, however, exceeds normal limits and adoring staff have worked out who their guest is. He stops mid-sentence and points up towards the speakers, delighted. The soft jazz that had been playing discreetly across the restaurant’s dark, hardwood interior has suddenly been replaced with the theme music from some of Kojima’s hit games. Harry Gregson-Williams’ music is sublime in its context but ‘Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots’ is not, Kojima acknowledges, terribly restauranty. He pauses, adjusting a pair of large, blue-framed glasses of his own design, and returns to the way in which games have not only influenced films, but have also changed the way in which people watch them. “There are stories being told [in cinema] that my generation may find surprising but which the gamer generation doesn’t find weird at all,” he says.
~ Hideo Kojima