Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

Drive (2011) Dir: Nicolas Winding Refn | DP: Newton Thomas Sigel The elevator scene did not exist until one week before it was shot. Refn built it after another sequence stopped working, and he phoned Gaspar Noé to learn the head stomping technique from Irréversible, calling him "the king...

cinemaoccupy's profile picture

cinemaoccupy

33,800 subscribers

24,200 views • 2 months ago •via TikTok

ArtsNews & Politics#drive#nicolaswindingrefn#ryangosling#neonnoir#occupycinema
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

DRIVE was released 15 years ago today. Drive was originally a conventional action thriller with Hugh Jackman attached. Ryan Gosling brought in Nicolas Winding Refn, and together they reinvented it as the stylish neo-noir that became a modern classic.
2:19

DRIVE was released 15 years ago today. Drive was originally a conventional action thriller with Hugh Jackman attached. Ryan Gosling brought in Nicolas Winding Refn, and together they reinvented it as the stylish neo-noir that became a modern classic.

cinesthetic.

48,261 views • 4 months ago

DRIVE (2011) is one of those rare films where every creative decision feels right. Ryan Gosling, Nicolas Winding Refn, the synth-heavy soundtrack, the deliberate pacing and those sudden bursts of violence all come together into something damn near perfect.
2:26

DRIVE (2011) is one of those rare films where every creative decision feels right. Ryan Gosling, Nicolas Winding Refn, the synth-heavy soundtrack, the deliberate pacing and those sudden bursts of violence all come together into something damn near perfect.

cinesthetic.

26,205 views • 21 days ago

Nicolas Winding Refn on how he uses violence in Drive (2011): “Like sex. It’s all about the build-up. Violence is a mechanical device, it has no function if you’re not emotionally engaged in it. And so, the more you are into the love story between them, the more the violence will pay off. And because the love story is so pure, the violence needs to be really explicit to balance it.”
2:24

Nicolas Winding Refn on how he uses violence in Drive (2011): “Like sex. It’s all about the build-up. Violence is a mechanical device, it has no function if you’re not emotionally engaged in it. And so, the more you are into the love story between them, the more the violence will pay off. And because the love story is so pure, the violence needs to be really explicit to balance it.”

Gangster Cinema Central

514,375 views • 4 days ago

The elevator scene in Drive (2011) is pure cinema mood. A kiss that feels like time stops, then sudden, shocking violence. Winding Refn traps the camera in that tiny space so every second stretches, and the sound drops out like the world just blinked.
1:18

The elevator scene in Drive (2011) is pure cinema mood. A kiss that feels like time stops, then sudden, shocking violence. Winding Refn traps the camera in that tiny space so every second stretches, and the sound drops out like the world just blinked.

cinesthetic.

84,288 views • 9 months ago

Drive (2011) was originally meant to be a loud studio action film starring Hugh Jackman, but Ryan Gosling pushed for Nicolas Winding Refn to direct instead. That choice changed everything. What could’ve been generic became hypnotic masterpiece.
2:26

Drive (2011) was originally meant to be a loud studio action film starring Hugh Jackman, but Ryan Gosling pushed for Nicolas Winding Refn to direct instead. That choice changed everything. What could’ve been generic became hypnotic masterpiece.

cinesthetic.

378,103 views • 1 year ago

Nicolas Winding Refn never imagined that "Pusher" (1996) would be shown outside Denmark. None of the film festivals wanted to screen the movie. They all turned it down. When it played at the market in Berlin, a British distributor saw it by chance & loved it. He bought to screen it at the United Kingdom. Because of the positive reception it got in the UK, Nicolas Winding Refn was able to sell the movie worldwide. P.S: On this day, 30 years ago, "Pusher" (1996) was released in Denmark.
1:37

Nicolas Winding Refn never imagined that "Pusher" (1996) would be shown outside Denmark. None of the film festivals wanted to screen the movie. They all turned it down. When it played at the market in Berlin, a British distributor saw it by chance & loved it. He bought to screen it at the United Kingdom. Because of the positive reception it got in the UK, Nicolas Winding Refn was able to sell the movie worldwide. P.S: On this day, 30 years ago, "Pusher" (1996) was released in Denmark.

DepressedBergman

35,067 views • 2 months ago

It’s been 14 years since Nicolas Winding Refn gave us this unforgettable intro. Kavinsky’s ‘Nightcall’ sets the tone perfectly. Drive is a masterpiece and one of Ryan Gosling’s finest performances. Pure perfection.
2:43

It’s been 14 years since Nicolas Winding Refn gave us this unforgettable intro. Kavinsky’s ‘Nightcall’ sets the tone perfectly. Drive is a masterpiece and one of Ryan Gosling’s finest performances. Pure perfection.

cinesthetic.

455,995 views • 1 year ago

On this day, 14 years ago, "Drive" (2011) by Nicolas Winding Refn premiered at the Cannes Film Festival, France.
1:07

On this day, 14 years ago, "Drive" (2011) by Nicolas Winding Refn premiered at the Cannes Film Festival, France.

DepressedBergman

26,015 views • 1 year ago

Nicolas Winding Refn on AI: “Having now tried it on something later on that may show here, I really love the creativity. For me, it’s like a brush. And obviously, no one really knows all the implications of what this is going to do and what’s going to happen, but from the perspective of creativity it’s a new invention. And then it’s what you’re going to do with it.”
1:06

Nicolas Winding Refn on AI: “Having now tried it on something later on that may show here, I really love the creativity. For me, it’s like a brush. And obviously, no one really knows all the implications of what this is going to do and what’s going to happen, but from the perspective of creativity it’s a new invention. And then it’s what you’re going to do with it.”

Variety

692,603 views • 5 months ago

Everyone was calling Fable5.1 the ceiling. Then GPT-6 Astra rendered the same scene. The bottom half is the file both models were handed. Crash dummies, no materials, no light, no faces. The top half is what each one built from it. GPT-6 Astra goes first. Fable5.1 goes second. Same seats, same sunroof, same autumn road. Watch the belt on the shoulder and the light through the glass. One model lit a car. The other remembered a drive. You will not need the label to know the second it switches.
0:26

Everyone was calling Fable5.1 the ceiling. Then GPT-6 Astra rendered the same scene. The bottom half is the file both models were handed. Crash dummies, no materials, no light, no faces. The top half is what each one built from it. GPT-6 Astra goes first. Fable5.1 goes second. Same seats, same sunroof, same autumn road. Watch the belt on the shoulder and the light through the glass. One model lit a car. The other remembered a drive. You will not need the label to know the second it switches.

AiMind

44,681 views • 1 month ago

Notice which part of the Hardoi story nobody amplifying it wants to talk about. The inspection did not happen after a press conference. It happened after the complaint. The suspensions did not wait for an election cycle. They came the same week. And the action did not stop at the two teachers, it climbed upward to the officers whose job was to catch this earlier. Ask yourself when that last happened, and under whose government. For years the mid day meal story in this state was a story of complaints going nowhere. Files moved, nobody was suspended, the same kitchen served the same food the next morning. The scheme existed on paper and children ate whatever arrived. Today a video from a village school in Tadiyawan reaches the district magistrate and the state within hours, and people lose their jobs over it. Zero tolerance is not a slogan you print on a banner. It is what happens to the people responsible. Look at the record from this week and tell me it did not happen.
2:35

Notice which part of the Hardoi story nobody amplifying it wants to talk about. The inspection did not happen after a press conference. It happened after the complaint. The suspensions did not wait for an election cycle. They came the same week. And the action did not stop at the two teachers, it climbed upward to the officers whose job was to catch this earlier. Ask yourself when that last happened, and under whose government. For years the mid day meal story in this state was a story of complaints going nowhere. Files moved, nobody was suspended, the same kitchen served the same food the next morning. The scheme existed on paper and children ate whatever arrived. Today a video from a village school in Tadiyawan reaches the district magistrate and the state within hours, and people lose their jobs over it. Zero tolerance is not a slogan you print on a banner. It is what happens to the people responsible. Look at the record from this week and tell me it did not happen.

News Algebra

25,120 views • 3 months ago

the famous unscripted kiss ofc it was just them trying not to kiss for 3mins straight until thomas listened to the voices inside head and went for the gold #thomaskong #โทมัสก้อง
3:37

Sensitive content

the famous unscripted kiss ofc it was just them trying not to kiss for 3mins straight until thomas listened to the voices inside head and went for the gold #thomaskong #โทมัสก้อง

shi🔮

89,759 views • 10 months ago

Genesis 1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. Genesis 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. Genesis 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
0:29

Genesis 1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. Genesis 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. Genesis 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

DeepWebSlinger

13,929 views • 8 months ago

The @Arzyparzy Stalkerdiver remake is ready to begin the drive! I'm sure a lot of people are excited for this one! The drive will be active for a week and like and reposts from Twitter and Bluesky will contribute to it
0:41

The @Arzyparzy Stalkerdiver remake is ready to begin the drive! I'm sure a lot of people are excited for this one! The drive will be active for a week and like and reposts from Twitter and Bluesky will contribute to it

Random (Commissions full)

21,510 views • 5 months ago

Matt Damon reveals Steven Soderbergh sent him a fully scored cut of every scene by 8pm the same night they shot it "Steven operates the camera, is the editor, is the cinematographer, and the director" "I'd go home and the kids were little, we'd bathe them, give him dinner, read him a story, put him to sleep. I'd come downstairs by like 7:30 or 8:00 and on my iPad there was a new delivery" "I'd open it up and it was the scene we shot that day fully scored as it was going to appear in the movie when it came out nine months later" "To calibrate the performance is difficult, but not when you can watch, yeah, here's the scene that's going to happen after this and here's the scene that just happened before this"
1:18

Matt Damon reveals Steven Soderbergh sent him a fully scored cut of every scene by 8pm the same night they shot it "Steven operates the camera, is the editor, is the cinematographer, and the director" "I'd go home and the kids were little, we'd bathe them, give him dinner, read him a story, put him to sleep. I'd come downstairs by like 7:30 or 8:00 and on my iPad there was a new delivery" "I'd open it up and it was the scene we shot that day fully scored as it was going to appear in the movie when it came out nine months later" "To calibrate the performance is difficult, but not when you can watch, yeah, here's the scene that's going to happen after this and here's the scene that just happened before this"

sara

69,579 views • 4 months ago

Forrest Gump made $661 million and still lost money on paper. The man who wrote it was owed 3% of the profits and paid exactly zero - and the studio never broke a single rule The word was net. Winston Groom had sold the rights to his novel for $350,000, plus 3% of the net profits - a share of whatever was left after the studio covered its costs. Tom Hanks, in the same film, took the opposite: a slice of the gross, a cut of the money the moment it came in, before anyone subtracted a cent. Same movie, same success. One of them got paid Here’s where it becomes pure money. “Net profit” was never a number anyone would find - it was a number the studio got to build. Paramount took a 32% distribution fee off the top, paid straight to itself. Then came advertising, overhead, interest on its own financing, and the gross checks already cut to Hanks and the director. Every one was subtracted before the math reached Groom’s 3%. So it never did. A film that sold $661 million in tickets had, on paper, lost money - not by accident, by design That’s the whole lesson, and it has nothing to do with movies. A share of the profits is only ever a share of a number the other side gets to define - and whoever decides what counts as an expense will always find one more before they reach you. Hanks took his cut off the top, where nothing could be subtracted. Groom took his off the bottom, where everything could. Same percentage sign, opposite outcomes Groom only saw real money after he threatened to sue - and the deal he signed for the sequel rights changed one thing that mattered more than the figure: his share would be counted before expenses, not after. He’d finally learned the only rule that protects you. So the next time someone offers you a percentage of the profits - a bonus, equity, a revenue share, a cut of the deal - don’t ask how big the slice is. Ask who gets to decide what’s left to slice. Did Groom just negotiate badly, or was he the last to learn that “net” is a number written by the people who owe you?
0:45

Forrest Gump made $661 million and still lost money on paper. The man who wrote it was owed 3% of the profits and paid exactly zero - and the studio never broke a single rule The word was net. Winston Groom had sold the rights to his novel for $350,000, plus 3% of the net profits - a share of whatever was left after the studio covered its costs. Tom Hanks, in the same film, took the opposite: a slice of the gross, a cut of the money the moment it came in, before anyone subtracted a cent. Same movie, same success. One of them got paid Here’s where it becomes pure money. “Net profit” was never a number anyone would find - it was a number the studio got to build. Paramount took a 32% distribution fee off the top, paid straight to itself. Then came advertising, overhead, interest on its own financing, and the gross checks already cut to Hanks and the director. Every one was subtracted before the math reached Groom’s 3%. So it never did. A film that sold $661 million in tickets had, on paper, lost money - not by accident, by design That’s the whole lesson, and it has nothing to do with movies. A share of the profits is only ever a share of a number the other side gets to define - and whoever decides what counts as an expense will always find one more before they reach you. Hanks took his cut off the top, where nothing could be subtracted. Groom took his off the bottom, where everything could. Same percentage sign, opposite outcomes Groom only saw real money after he threatened to sue - and the deal he signed for the sequel rights changed one thing that mattered more than the figure: his share would be counted before expenses, not after. He’d finally learned the only rule that protects you. So the next time someone offers you a percentage of the profits - a bonus, equity, a revenue share, a cut of the deal - don’t ask how big the slice is. Ask who gets to decide what’s left to slice. Did Groom just negotiate badly, or was he the last to learn that “net” is a number written by the people who owe you?

Finer

521,175 views • 27 days ago

According to Roy Scheider, "Filming 'Sorcerer' (1977) made 'Jaws' (1975) look like a picnic". He considered the Bridge scene to be the most dangerous he has ever acted in. The scene was so real that he said, "What the audience will see on that screen is what really happened." Building the bridge cost about a million dollars. It took 3 months to complete. Friedkin called it "A mad enterprise and definitely life threatening". The bridge was built on what they considered to be a "perfect river" in Dominican Republic. It was 12 feet deep. However, there were weeks without rainfall and the level of the river started dropping. The river has never went dry before according to the locals. When the bridge was completed, the river had only 1 feet of water making it impossible to film the scene there. With only 2 scenes left to film, the crew had to leave for Mexico to shoot the bridge scene. So they decided to shoot the scene in a river in an Aztec village in a remote location in Mexico. The Bridge had to be reassembled and anchored in the new location. The shutdown of production had lasted a month which was a huge expense to the management. When the crew arrived at the village, there was a huge exodus of the local population. When Friedkin enquired, he was informed by one of the authorities that it was because of word of William Friedkin's arrival. They were a deeply religious people, and when they heard the man who made "The Exorcist" (1973) was coming to their village: they felt it was "bad karma". But few of the locals stayed and helped with the filming. Before arriving, Friedkin was informed that it rained often in the area, but didn't know that it was only in the summer season. Since it was the fall, there was no rain and the river began to drop at the rate of six inches or more a day. The water was diverted to the location of the bridge in the river using large pipes and pumping equipment. Since Friedkin wanted to shoot the scene in the rain, they brought in half a dozen large sprinklers that drew water from upriver. The scene runs twelve minutes, roughly 10 percent of the final cut, but it took months to complete and cost more than $3 million, most of it not budgeted. ("The Friedkin Connection: A Memoir", William Friedkin, 2013 & Roy Scheider's interview to the The New York Times, 1977) P.S: On this day, 49 years ago, "Sorcerer" (1977) was released in the USA.
2:14

According to Roy Scheider, "Filming 'Sorcerer' (1977) made 'Jaws' (1975) look like a picnic". He considered the Bridge scene to be the most dangerous he has ever acted in. The scene was so real that he said, "What the audience will see on that screen is what really happened." Building the bridge cost about a million dollars. It took 3 months to complete. Friedkin called it "A mad enterprise and definitely life threatening". The bridge was built on what they considered to be a "perfect river" in Dominican Republic. It was 12 feet deep. However, there were weeks without rainfall and the level of the river started dropping. The river has never went dry before according to the locals. When the bridge was completed, the river had only 1 feet of water making it impossible to film the scene there. With only 2 scenes left to film, the crew had to leave for Mexico to shoot the bridge scene. So they decided to shoot the scene in a river in an Aztec village in a remote location in Mexico. The Bridge had to be reassembled and anchored in the new location. The shutdown of production had lasted a month which was a huge expense to the management. When the crew arrived at the village, there was a huge exodus of the local population. When Friedkin enquired, he was informed by one of the authorities that it was because of word of William Friedkin's arrival. They were a deeply religious people, and when they heard the man who made "The Exorcist" (1973) was coming to their village: they felt it was "bad karma". But few of the locals stayed and helped with the filming. Before arriving, Friedkin was informed that it rained often in the area, but didn't know that it was only in the summer season. Since it was the fall, there was no rain and the river began to drop at the rate of six inches or more a day. The water was diverted to the location of the bridge in the river using large pipes and pumping equipment. Since Friedkin wanted to shoot the scene in the rain, they brought in half a dozen large sprinklers that drew water from upriver. The scene runs twelve minutes, roughly 10 percent of the final cut, but it took months to complete and cost more than $3 million, most of it not budgeted. ("The Friedkin Connection: A Memoir", William Friedkin, 2013 & Roy Scheider's interview to the The New York Times, 1977) P.S: On this day, 49 years ago, "Sorcerer" (1977) was released in the USA.

DepressedBergman

76,740 views • 4 months ago