Xixax Film Forum

Cronenberg's Film Full of Violence, Sex

Early scenes in "A History of Violence" show a loving family in small-town Indiana. This being a David Cronenberg movie, you suspect their lives are about to get very, very twisted.

The director of "The Fly" and "Videodrome" is a regular at the Cannes Film Festival, having won a special jury prize for "Crash" and presided over the judging. He has never won the top prize, the Palme d'Or, but his new film which premiered Monday looks like one of the stronger contenders so far.

The film shows how an unexpected outburst of violence transforms a folksy diner owner (Viggo Mortensen, who played the title character in "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King") and his family. There's plenty of blood and gore which, Cronenberg says, is not gratuitous.

"I think what we did in this movie vis-a-vis violence was ultra-responsible, because it's a serious discussion of the nature of violence and the impact that it has on society and family and human life and on human bodies as well," he told reporters.

As the movie opens, Mortensen's character, Tom Stall, has a storybook life. He has a caring wife (Maria Bello from "The Cooler" and "Autofocus"), a smart teenage son and an adorable little daughter. When the youngest has a nightmare, the whole family crawls into her bed to comfort her.

Things take a turn for the weird when some Philadelphia mobsters charge into Tom's life, convinced he's a long-lost associate.

The movie has "the resonance of Westerns, of American Western movies and the mythology involved, a man who takes a gun in his hands to protect his family and his homestead against other men with guns," Cronenberg said.

One of the mobsters is played by Ed Harris, who saunters into town wearing a dark suit and sunglasses and proceeds to stalk Tom and his family. Tom does everything he can to convince Harris' character he has the wrong man.

Eventually, Tom is forced to make a trip to Philadelphia to confront the mob leader at the heart of his troubles (William Hurt). Hurt is on screen only about 10 minutes, but it's a remarkable performance: He's creepy, larger-than-life and very funny.

Giving too much of the plot away would spoil the movie. But at a press screening, many scenes had the audience laughing and clapping even the violent sequences.

The uncomfortable mix of humor and violence is meant to make people think.

"I'm not surprised the audience would applaud," Cronenberg said. "Because I wanted them to be complicit. I wanted them to be involved in it."

At Cannes, the Canadian director has a history of causing discomfort and controversy.

When he headed the jury in 1999, people were shocked by its choices such as giving top acting prizes to people who had never acted before.

In 1996, some people booed and walked out of "Crash," Cronenberg's twisted movie about lovers who get turned on by car crashes; then it won a special Jury Prize.

Like "Crash," Cronenberg's new movie tackles the uncomfortable links between sexuality and violence. At the beginning, Tom's wife puts on a cheerleader's uniform to spice up their marriage. By the end, their love life enters darker territory.

"I think there is always a sexual component in violence, and there's a violent component in sexuality, any kind," saiad Cronenberg, whose films include "Dead Ringers" and "Spider." "So to me that's just a natural thing to explore."

damn, this sounds like a fun movie.

Dialogue: David Cronenberg
The Canadian director talks about returning to Cannes with his latest project, the perceptions of his work and the "poverty of thought" currently plaguing the industry.

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hollywoodreporter.com%2Fthr%2Fphotos%2F2005%2F05-B%2Fcronenberg170.jpg&hash=71816cf9e7a3f3eb0433b261158cb4f451a43271)

David Cronenberg's unique gift for merging science fiction and horror with ruminations on human physiology and psychology has defined him as one of the most consistently innovative and audacious filmmakers of his generation. (The Festival de Cannes even awarded him a prize for that audacity as embodied in auto-erotic thriller "Crash" back in 1996.) His latest, "A History of Violence," is a somewhat more traditional drama that examines how one family is ripped apart after a father (Viggo Mortensen) kills a man in self-defense. A former jury president, Cronenberg spoke to The Hollywood Reporter's Gina McIntyre about returning to Cannes with his latest project, the perceptions of his work and the "poverty of thought" currently plaguing the industry.

The Hollywood Reporter: After having served as jury president in 1999, are you anticipating that this Cannes experience will be different from your previous visits?

David Cronenberg: I guess it is. I was always surprised by the opinions of my fellow jury members and realized that there's no way of anticipating anybody's reaction to any movie at all. You might as well forget it because you can't control it. As a director, you've done your job by making the movie as best you can and getting it into the festival is the only triumph that counts. After that, it's a roll of the dice. I'm just very excited to be In Competition. It's a lot of fun, really, and you have to take it that way. You can't get too twisted out of shape about it.

THR: You don't really seem like a filmmaker who's particularly concerned with awards and accolades.

Cronenberg: No. The only thing ultimately that counts is you want people to see your movie, and you want them to respond to it in a positive way. Even if you were only worried about boxoffice -- because in a way, that's the only way that you can count up the numbers of people who want to see your movie -- you can see from the history of the festival that some films win the Palme d'Or and become great financial successes. And some win the Palme d'Or and sink without a trace. Even from that point of view you can't worry about it.

THR: There's been much discussion about the number of veteran auteurs in this year's festival lineup. What do you think experienced directors bring to Cannes that up-and-comers might not be able to offer?

Cronenberg: Good moviemaking -- good complex, interesting moviemaking. It's also a matter of stamina. There are filmmakers who appear, they make one film or two and then they disappear. It's a process that really does improve with age. You do learn a lot of things. You should be able to get better. It doesn't mean that you'll never make a mistake or never make a bad movie. Also, it does come a lot from the French auteur theory, which is often misunderstood. It suggests that if you're an interesting director with a strong personality, you will leave your mark on a film if it's a studio film or an independent film. And if you're a critic who finds the filmmaking of a particular director interesting, then you will be interested in every film he makes, even if he sometimes makes bad ones. That's the idea. It's not really a matter of getting in a rut or going with what's safe, it's saying these are interesting, complex filmmakers and their work is worth following wherever they take it.

THR: "A History of Violence" has been described as something of a departure for you. Would you agree with that assessment?

Cronenberg: I don't, really. People who say that perhaps don't remember (1983's) "The Dead Zone," which was based on a best-selling novel and was a very popular film. It was a mainstream movie that was connected with a studio, although it wasn't an in-house studio project. In a way, "A History of Violence" is closest to "The Dead Zone," even though there's no supernatural element, but it's the same kind of thing. It's based on a work in another medium, in this case a graphic novel, and it's very plot and character oriented. It's less of an art film with a capital "A." It is quite different from, let's say, (2002's) "Spider" or even (1998's) "Dead Ringers." But as I say, I've had a couple of No. 1 hits in the past, like (1988's) "The Fly" and (1981's) "Scanners," so for me, it's just business as usual. It's just another facet of things that I'm interested in. As I say, critics who have only been thinking of my last four or five movies, I can understand why they think this is very different, but for me it's not really.

THR: What drew you to this story?

Cronenberg: It's very intriguing. It's compelling in the way that Hitchcock is compelling, and at the same time, it has a kind of classic feel that's almost like a John Ford Western. It's a combination of things, and the characters are very strong. I haven't done too many family dramas and, in a way, this is one, but I just found it very compelling in all of those ways.

THR: You've described the themes in your films as "Disintegration, aging, death, separation, the meaning of life. All that stuff.' Does "A History of Violence" contain those same themes?

Cronenberg: Well, it more has to do with another favorite theme, which is identity. It's a question of identity and what it is and how it is not absolute. Identity is a constructed thing. "Spider" deals with that, in fact, and so does (1999's) "eXistenZ" and so does "Dead Ringers." And "M. Butterfly" as well. This is a more naturalistic setting for examination of that theme in that it's a more recognizable group of people, a normal -- whatever that is -- Midwestern American family and yet the question of identity is still an issue there.

THR: What is it about these themes that causes you to return to them so often?

Cronenberg: They all seem to do with the essence of what it is to be human. We can be very distracted by the superficialities of life, but at a certain point, you realize that those things are superficial. You end up going back to the primordial things -- birth and death and identity and questing for understanding. It's a kind of an existentialist approach for me, but it's been pretty consistent. Even when I was a young filmmaker, I felt that these were the things that were worth exploring because they were very potent.

THR: What are your thoughts on the conservative climate in the United States at the moment? Do you think that will have a dampening affect on more experimental filmmakers?

Cronenberg: I believe it already has. It's not so much being conservative, it's being repressive. There's a huge internal fear element in America now. It's evident in the rise of censorship in broadcast, which leads to self-censorship, and self-censorship is the essence of a totalitarian state. Talk to anybody who lived in Romania or the Soviet Union at their most repressive heights, and the most oppressive things about it was how internalized the censorship became. The state didn't even have to do it anymore because people were just so afraid to do anything, to say anything, to dare anything, to think anything, and I think that that's atmosphere in the U.S. now -- of course I'm not the first one to mention it. However much it might be wrapped in the flag and discussions of national security, censorship ends up being censorship. It's not good for a democracy. That is for sure.

THR: You've not directed one of your own screenplays since "eXistenZ." Is there a difference in how you approach screenplays from other writers?

Cronenberg: No, really not. It's interesting because eventually you're cursing the writer, whether it's you or somebody else. You're saying, why didn't he think of this? Why didn't he realize that this was going to cause huge problems? So you end up rewriting it or working it out. It's an interesting thing, no matter how perfect a screenplay might seem when you read it -- and few people really think that they're reading a perfect screenplay -- but when it comes alive, it fights you. Because of the cast that you've got and because of the circumstances of shooting and so on, it takes on its own life, and it starts to fight you for its own life and its own shape. You've got to let it do that to a certain extent, and then you have to control it to a certain extent. It's a balancing act that you do, and it doesn't seem to matter if it's your own screenplay or not. Once you've decided to do the project, you do mix your blood with it. It's such a long, difficult process that it feels the same. You can't tell the difference.

THR: It's the second film in the Cannes lineup to be adapted from a graphic novel. Do you think that we will begin to see more evolved films emerge from that medium in the coming years? Hollywood has demonstrated its affection for comic book adaptations as lucrative blockbusters, but do you think that more independent-minded filmmakers will turn to graphic novels for inspiration as well?

Cronenberg: I think that there's a desperation for material. Period. Whether it's sequels or remakes of remakes of remakes or remakes of TV shows, I think there's a poverty of thought and originality there. I'm not really a big fan of the kind of retro sensibility. I think that the approach we've taken with "History of Violence" is diametrically opposite to "Sin City." I actually didn't realize that it was based on a graphic novel until I'd already agreed to do the movie. On the script, it didn't say that it was based on anything, so I thought it was an original script. And that's the way I went forward with it. Of course, "Sin City" was completely the reverse -- it was to try to be totally faithful to the graphic novel. A movie can come from anywhere -- from a dream, a nightmare, from other sources, from an opera, you name it. It can come from there, but for me, the whole graphic novel thing is not very compelling. I've not been a huge follower of that. That's not to say that if something came to me again began that way, as with "History of Violence," I wouldn't turn it down either because it was that. I think it's a huge monster with an immense mouth, the business, and it's looking for things to devour to fill its stomach. Everything is fair game -- soon they'll be adapting calendars.

THR: What is your assessment of the current glut of remakes of classic horror and cult films from the '70s?

Cronenberg: It's very perplexing because many of my old movies have been suggested for remakes. There's been talk of remaking "Scanners" and "The Brood" and even "Videodrome," and that fills me with horror of a different kind. I really think it's a lack of faith in the creative process. It is part of a general atmosphere of conservatism, in this case not politically but creatively. You want something that has some proven value, even if it only had value 30 or 40 years ago because you're so uncertain about what could possibly work as original. You'd think that people would be looking for strikingly original work, but it's quite the contrary. That's the hardest sell possible. It's too bad because a lot of the stuff that was done in the '70s and the '60s as well was powerful because it was original. Now, it's not a great era for moviemaking, I'm afraid. It's all retro.

The strange thing is, that Tarantino-esque sensibility -- the idea that if you remake '70s trash it will somehow be better now. ... I remember those '70s films, and they weren't good then. Why would you want to remake it? I don't get it. It doesn't have any resonance for me just as a moviegoer, and certainly not as a filmmaker. I think it's so restricted in its range of creative inquiry, that it's just an endless, incestuous cycle of trash. It doesn't become something else being cycled that way, as far as I'm concerned.

The problem is that the whole idea of making films just because you love movies really derails the whole process of art. That's not enough of a reason to make a movie -- because, gee, I loved that movie when I was a kid so I'll remake it. That's really weird, and I think the results are pretty pathetic really. If brilliant movies came out of that, I'd have to say, well, they must be onto something that works. But that's not the case. It's almost like it's a fear or an inability to respond to the real world and instead retreating to your video corner to relive your childhood in a very superficial way. It's not very exciting.

THR: What is next for you?

Cronenberg: I've been talking to Robert Lantos about doing a movie that I wrote quite a while ago called "Painkillers." At the moment, that seems very possibly to be my next movie. It needs me to go back to the script and re-examine it, but at the moment, that's the closest thing I have to something.

Trailer here. (http://www.apple.com/trailers/newline/ahistoryofviolence/)

Release Date: September 30th, 2005 (limited)

Cast: Viggo Mortensen (Tom Stall), Maria Bello (Edie Stall), Ed Harris, William Hurt, Ashton Holmes (Jack Stall), Heidi Hayes (Sarah Stall), Kyle Schmid (Bobby Jordan), Steve Arbuckle (Jared), Greg Bryk (William "Billy" Orser), Sumela Kay (Judy), Ian Matthews (Ruben), April Mullen (Lisa), Connor Price (Kid)

Director: David Cronenberg (Spider, eXinstenZ)

Screenwriter: Josh Olson (Infested)

Premise: "A History of Violence" stars Viggo Mortensen as a pillar of a small town community who runs a diner and lives a happy and quiet life with his wife (Maria Bello) and two children. But their lives are forever changed when Mortensen thwarts an attempted robbery and is lauded as a hero by the media, attracting the attention of some mobsters (William Hurt and Ed Harris) who believe he is someone else.

this looks good.  i hope there is more meat to it cause it seems to setup most of the film in the trailer/synopsis.  but i will see this fo sho.

Definitely seeing this.

Man. This looks amazing. I'm stoked.

It has an interesting premise and it's cronenberg..it should be good.  However, the trailer is edited in a way that makes it look more ridiculous than i think the film will actually be...i hope at least.

This will have a super twist ending.

Cronenburg rocks. I can't help but have high expectations for this, but you're right pedro, the trailer does seem a little cheesy.

Comic-Con 2005: A History of Violence
Director David Cronenberg and writer Josh Olson discuss their shocking drama.
 
David Cronenberg's A History of Violence is based on a graphic novel, and he didn't even know it when he signed on for the project. Instead, he signed on because, "There was something about the script that was disturbing and resonant and really good." Loosely based on the titular book, the film was penned by Josh Olson, whose previous credit is the direct-to-DVD offering Infection. The film is the story of a man in a small town who breaks up a robbery and becomes a hero in the process. However, his heroics lead to unwanted attention from criminals who think he's a former colleague hiding from his past.

David Cronenberg and Josh Olson spoke on a panel at today's Comic-Con in San Diego, between clips and trailers of the film. Olson described the feeling of being told that Cronenberg was directed his script as "beyond my wildest expectations," adding, "He was one of my top two living directors."

For both, the material had to be interesting over the long term. "You read something and you say… Is this something I can spend a year, two years making?" Ultimately, Olson took the story in a different direction from the graphic novel.

Both men noted that apart from the first twenty minutes, the film deviates greatly from the book, and delves much deeper into personal relationships. Cronenberg also insisted that they add sex to the script. "I want you to know that Josh's first draft had no sex… I forced him to write his first pornographic scenes," Cronenberg beamed.

The two spoke about how they came to the project, and touched on casting for the film. "It's always a torturous process… casting," said Cronenberg. "I was pulling for Carrot Top," added Olson.

Cronenberg went on to say that the realities of film-making and collaboration dictate that a director must have a range of actors in mind for each role. "You do get into list-making. It's a strange thing, but it's true." Viggo Mortensen was cast in the leading role, and Cronenberg had this to say about the actor: "I can't say Viggo was the only one on my list, but he was always on my list." Citing his work in Lord of the Rings, he noted that Mortensen is "an underrated star… He's actually a superb, superb actor."

Asked to talk about his own experience as an actor (Cronenberg has acted in films such as Nightbreed and Jason X), he told the audience it gave him a lot of insight into "why actors are the way they are," and claimed they have a sort of "gypsy mentality." He spoke about his time shooting Nightbreed in London, where he shut himself in a room (he was working on writing Naked Lunch at the time) and spent as little time in London as possible. "I was quite introverted and strange. I'm sure none of you have had that experience," he jabbed, and his sarcasm was met with a rumbling of chuckles.

His experience acting also helped to inform and develop his own directing style, which he described as "warm and supportive." He does not believe in storyboards because it takes away the element of collaboration with actors. If you set up exactly how a shot will be, he contends, you cut the actor out of the process and don't give them an opportunity to use their most powerful instrument: the body.

Howard Shore, the composer for virtually all of Cronenberg's projects, supplies the music for this film as well. "We developed together… We grew up together in the business," said Cronenberg.

According to the director, the two have great chemistry and communicate superbly, even if in abstract ways. "He constantly amazes me… with how beautifully adapted to the movie [the music] is," said Cronenberg.

In fact, the director has been working with many of the same people he always has. "I work with the same people as long as we can stimulate each other to new cinematic heights of ecstasy."

Judging from the clips, the movie just may reach some of those heights.

FUCK, they're having a screening of this the same night as the Directors Series event so it looks like I can't go to this.  For anyone in NYC area...

DAVID CRONENBERG IN PERSON: SPECIAL PREVIEW SCREENING OF 'A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE'
Tuesday, September 13 7:00 p.m.

A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE
One of the most admired films at this year's Cannes Film Festival, David Cronenberg's A History of Violence will be shown at the Museum just days after its North American premiere at the Toronto International Film Festival. A discussion with the director will follow the screening. This will be the Museum's third Pinewood Dialogue with the Cronenberg, whose films include Videodrome, Dead Ringers, Naked Lunch, and Spider.

Adapted from the graphic novel by John Wagner and Vince Locke, A History of Violence is a provocative drama about how one American family's peaceful existence is torn apart by a shocking act of violence. After Tom Stall (Viggo Mortensen), the owner of a small-town diner, kills two would-be robbers, he is hailed a hero by his community. But the incident brings unwanted media attention and a visit from a sinister stranger (Ed Harris) bearing a grudge against someone who looks just like Tom. Tom's wife (Maria Bello), and two children join him in confronting this new threat and their own relationships. View the trailer here.

Read J. Hoberman's rave comments about the film here.

Tickets are $18 for the public and $12 for Museum members and can be purchased in advance by calling 718-784-4520.

A History of Violence will be released theatrically by New Line Cinema on September 23.  http://www.ammi.org/site/site.php

Nothing cartoonish about it
In his bloody art-house thriller "A History of Violence," director David Cronenberg settled upon what he terms a "practical approach." Source: Los Angeles Times

When it came time for David Cronenberg to choose how much violence to depict in his bloody art-house thriller "A History of Violence," the director settled upon what he terms a "practical approach": Less is more.

"It could not be balletic or slow-motion beautiful, and it could not feel choreographed," Cronenberg reasoned. "It would be nasty, brutish and short — which is what the philosopher Hobbes said about life in general."
 
In the film, which opens in Los Angeles Sept. 30, small-town diner owner Tom Stall (Viggo Mortensen) kills two wanted murderers in self-defense. He becomes a local hero but gets embroiled in a high-stakes case of mistaken identity when big-city gangsters played by Ed Harris and William Hurt come looking for him. After Stall's family is threatened, the bodies start to pile up.

"For the characters, the violence is functional, necessary, justified," Cronenberg said.

To mitigate any perception of violence for violence's sake, the Canadian director, whose films often showcase sci-fi gore but seldom feature physical combat, chose to bookend each of "Violence's" fight sequences with lingering close-ups of their grisly human toll — special emphasis given to smashed-in faces, bullet-riven torsos and coagulating blood.

"Most action pictures want you to be exhilarated; they don't want you to be disturbed," the director said. "They don't want to show you the consequences of action in terms of real death."

The aftermath imagery serves as a kind of aesthetic counterpoint to the gratuitous shootouts and punch-ups employed by the "Die Hard" school of action moviemaking.

Cronenberg added, "From what I've seen in test screenings so far, the audience will applaud and cheer — and then it's all shut off like a tap when you cut to those shots showing what the results of violence are."

Although "Violence's" script was adapted from a graphic novel of the same name by screenwriter Josh Olson, Cronenberg points out that his version significantly departs from the source material. He also took pains to distance the project from another graphic novel's cartoonishly violent big-screen translation.

"It couldn't be more different from 'Sin City,' " the director said. "This is not an action movie."

This is pretty damn good. It's short and extremely to the point, and it's efficiency is rather stunning. The best part about it is that the allegorical nature of it is crystal clear, and yet the implications of the allegory are so open-ended.

Quote from: MacGuffinNothing cartoonish about it
In his bloody art-house thriller "A History of Violence," director David Cronenberg settled upon what he terms a "practical approach." Source: Los Angeles Times

When it came time for David Cronenberg to choose how much violence to depict in his bloody art-house thriller "A History of Violence," the director settled upon what he terms a "practical approach": Less is more.

"It could not be balletic or slow-motion beautiful, and it could not feel choreographed," Cronenberg reasoned. "It would be nasty, brutish and short — which is what the philosopher Hobbes said about life in general."
 
In the film, which opens in Los Angeles Sept. 30, small-town diner owner Tom Stall (Viggo Mortensen) kills two wanted murderers in self-defense. He becomes a local hero but gets embroiled in a high-stakes case of mistaken identity when big-city gangsters played by Ed Harris and William Hurt come looking for him. After Stall's family is threatened, the bodies start to pile up.

"For the characters, the violence is functional, necessary, justified," Cronenberg said.

To mitigate any perception of violence for violence's sake, the Canadian director, whose films often showcase sci-fi gore but seldom feature physical combat, chose to bookend each of "Violence's" fight sequences with lingering close-ups of their grisly human toll — special emphasis given to smashed-in faces, bullet-riven torsos and coagulating blood.

"Most action pictures want you to be exhilarated; they don't want you to be disturbed," the director said. "They don't want to show you the consequences of action in terms of real death."

The aftermath imagery serves as a kind of aesthetic counterpoint to the gratuitous shootouts and punch-ups employed by the "Die Hard" school of action moviemaking.

Cronenberg added, "From what I've seen in test screenings so far, the audience will applaud and cheer — and then it's all shut off like a tap when you cut to those shots showing what the results of violence are."

Although "Violence's" script was adapted from a graphic novel of the same name by screenwriter Josh Olson, Cronenberg points out that his version significantly departs from the source material. He also took pains to distance the project from another graphic novel's cartoonishly violent big-screen translation.

"It couldn't be more different from 'Sin City,' " the director said. "This is not an action movie."

cronenberg is full of shit.  he's trying to make it seem high brow.  when you see the film, it's obvious the violence is exploitation.  it might be quick violence, but not because it's trying to look realistic, moreso just shock value.  still garnering appeal to the "action" part of taste.

-sl-

Quote from: socketlevelcronenberg is full of shit.  he's trying to make it seem high brow.  when you see the film, it's obvious the violence is exploitation.  it might be quick violence, but not because it's trying to look realistic, moreso just shock value.  still garnering appeal to the "action" part of taste.

I don't think that's true at all. It's only exploitative in that it exploits the audience's complicity in the characters' actions.

this is good, but i was hoping for great.

NOTICE: everyone keep your hopes in check!

the problem with the film was that the first 3/4 was pretty much all in the trailer except for a few exquisite shots of gore (boy does he excell at those).  at a certain point though when i thought hte movie was going to end i was like "uh oh, waitaminute!  we haven't seen william hurt yet (from the credits)!"  so that was a bit of a holy shit!  but its good, in a small-ish quiet way.  nothing to go crazy over.  C+

in order to keep me in check was it better/worse than spider in your opinion?

i will go so far as to call this film a masterpiece, a term (or word, rather) i use to describe both spider and crash as well, although a history of violence is the least of the three.

meaning... that cronenberg is 3 for 4 of what i've seen of his.  existenz (i'm not even going to try), i did not like.

the film's fantastic and handled with such confidence and grace.  beautifully constructed art-film-as-mainstream-entertainment that i absolutely loved.  i fucking love cronenberg.

Quote from: samsongi will go so far as to call this film a masterpiece, a term (or word, rather) i use to describe both spider and crash as well, although a history of violence is the least of the three.

meaning... that cronenberg is 3 for 4 of what i've seen of his.  existenz (i'm not even going to try), i did not like.

the film's fantastic and handled with such confidence and grace.  beautifully constructed art-film-as-mainstream-entertainment that i absolutely loved.  i fucking love cronenberg.

You haven't seen Dead Ringers, Videodrome or Naked Lunch and you're calling his films masterpieces?

Prepare for a mindblow.

I interviewed Cronenberg about A History of Violence:

http://www.buzzscope.com/features.php?id=1124#1

I tought this was good. It wasn't as Cronenbergish, as I expected somehow.

Didn't kick as much ass as expected though. That's it, short review. It's worth a see.

UPDATE

After the movie endend, there was a wave of laughter. Also, in first sex scene, the audience was very tense it was weird.

Quote from: RonenI interviewed Cronenberg about A History of Violence:

http://www.buzzscope.com/features.php?id=1124#1

Haha how come no one responded to that... I interviewed Cronenberg about A History of Violence:

Next time, interview PTA and I'll guess people here will cream their pants more. But still, Cronenberg, that's awesome.

A new Cronenberg comes out and there is a mere 2 pages of discussion about it ? God...allright I'll try to spark a discussion.

I'd say David Cronenberg is a poor man's David Lynch.

:shock:

Quote from: Pas Rap

Quote from: RonenI interviewed Cronenberg about A History of Violence:

http://www.buzzscope.com/features.php?id=1124#1

Haha how come no one responded to that... I interviewed Cronenberg about A History of Violence:

haha, maybe it's the same reason no one cares about mutinyco's interviews. worse even cos at least ppl know who mutinyco is.

i was really excited about this, but i ended up disappointed. it seems like he's trying to say something about darwinism and violence, but, whatever it was, it didn't strike a chord with me.

if you want to see maria bello 69 in a cheerleader outfit, however, this is the movie for you.

Quote from: modagethis is good, but i was hoping for great.
NOTICE: everyone keep your hopes in check!
C+

i tried to warn you.  :(

Quote from: abuck1220

if you want to see maria bello 69 in a cheerleader outfit, however, this is the movie for you.

This was so much the best part of the film that I'd point it out as a spoiler

Quote from: Pubrickhaha, maybe it's the same reason no one cares about mutinyco's interviews. worse even cos at least ppl know who mutinyco is.

P, you should've used that bait with the fuzzy orange thing on it. If I'd offered something here, it might've been justified. As I didn't, this is more an expression of your own subconscious. Go get some fresh air.

how rude!

Quote from: mutinyco

Quote from: Pubrickhaha, maybe it's the same reason no one cares about mutinyco's interviews. worse even cos at least ppl know who mutinyco is.

P, you should've used that bait with the fuzzy orange thing on it. If I'd offered something here, it might've been justified. As I didn't, this is more an expression of your own subconscious. Go get some fresh air.

I don't understand that post :yabbse-undecided:

Quote from: Pas Rap

Quote from: mutinyco

Quote from: Pubrickhaha, maybe it's the same reason no one cares about mutinyco's interviews. worse even cos at least ppl know who mutinyco is.

(1) P, you should've used that bait with the fuzzy orange thing on it.

(2) If I'd offered something here, it might've been justified.

(3) As I didn't, this is more an expression of your own subconscious.

(4) Go get some fresh air.

I don't understand that post :yabbse-undecided:

hmm, i interpreted it as such:

(1) P, stop trying to  start shit. it's not working.

(2) if I'd actually contributed to this particular thread, perhaps that may have warranted an insult/comment from you.

(3) but i didn't. so this is more about you, not me.

(4) Fuck off

Quote from: Hedwig

Quote from: Pas Rap

Quote from: mutinyco

Quote from: Pubrickhaha, maybe it's the same reason no one cares about mutinyco's interviews. worse even cos at least ppl know who mutinyco is.

(1) P, you should've used that bait with the fuzzy orange thing on it.

(2) If I'd offered something here, it might've been justified.

(3) As I didn't, this is more an expression of your own subconscious.

(4) Go get some fresh air.

I don't understand that post :yabbse-undecided:

hmm, i interpreted it as such:

(1) P, stop trying to  start shit. it's not working.

(2) if I'd actually contributed to this particular thread, perhaps that may have warranted an insult/comment from you.

(3) but i didn't. so this is more about you, not me.

(4) Fuck off

Thanks ! I tought it was like : 'Don't ask why nothing bites ! You should use that bait with the fuzzy orange thing on it to catch bass. If I had offered you that lame bait you're using it might had been justified, but I didn't so it's just ...how would you qualify your relationship with your mother ? Try fishing when there's wind.'

that's brilliant pas.

anyway i thought i was complimenting mutinyco in favour of this newb. the relevance was that mutinyco's interviews also get ignored, perhaps for the same reason (whatever that may be). i was speculating.

Got lost in the translation, I suppose. No offense taken.

i liked this film.  david kinda done good.

Man, this thread died pretty quick. I just saw this movie with a fairly full theater, which is suprising because I saw it at 3:00 pm on a Friday. Seems like not that many people would be up for seeing a film like this at that time of day.

SPOILERS



I completely agree with everything Ghostboy has said. And I especially agree with abuck (that scene is like this part of Family Guy, where three cheerleaders (weird connection) innocently start playing in a fountain and end up making out....the 69 begins as wholesome playful sex then gets raunchy pretty quick).

The movie is very ambiguous about what it's actually implying, which is great, I love it more for that. I was thinking while watching it that I wish Tom hadn't been with the mob for real, but then I thought "nah Straw Dogs already did what I wanted."

Does anyone know what they were smoking in front of the post office? I think it was a joint, but my friend thought it was just an amateur, high schooler way of smoking an actual cigarette? Where's pete, I'm too sheltered to figure this one out.

When that kid kicked the shit out of the bully, I felt utter joy. It's weird what Cronenberg makes you feel about violence.

END SPOILERS


This is a cool fucking movie. The gore is great. The actor who plays the son is AWESOME and well-written. I liked how it started off cheesy, almost cliche, just to really polarize the beginning and end. I really liked that small town feel. Ed Harris is incredible. William Hurt as well.

The more I think about this movie, the more brilliant it becomes. I'm starting to, dare I say, love this film.

winner=maria bello's thighs

Quote from: Gamblour
winner=maria bello's thighs

Fuck yes.

Also I agree about the premature death of this thread. I tought there would be more debate about this. Anyway the more I think about it the more I like it too.

The bully-ass-kicking scene felt so good because we all wanted to do it when we were in high school but never had the guts... except those of us who grew up in the gettho and experienced the real pain of the real world.

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsuicidegirls.com%2Fmedia%2Fauthors%2F1722%2Farticle.jpg&hash=6b071472f5e1b12cf56883e0b807691b86f8cc83)

David Cronenberg is the brilliant auteur behind such films as The Fly, Naked Lunch, Crash and Spider. His latest film, A History of Violence, may finally be the one that takes him to the Academy Awards. Based on the graphic novel by John Wagner and Vince Locke it stars Viggo Mortensen as a pillar of a small town community who runs a diner and lives a happy and quiet life with his wife [Maria Bello] and two children. But their lives are forever changed when Mortensen thwarts an attempted robbery and is lauded as a hero by the media, attracting the attention of some mobsters [Ed Harris] who believe he is someone else.

Daniel Robert Epstein: A History of Violence didn’t have a credit sequence like your past films.

David Cronenberg: That’s true. I guess it goes with my feeling that you don’t impose something on a movie just because conceptually it pleases you. I’ve said in the past I like to do a credit sequence that segues the audience from their real life into the life of the movie. But in this case I realized the opening sequence worked very well as one shot and had that particularly languidly sinister rhythm to it with a lot of spaces. I gradually started to feel that this could work very well as an opening title sequence on its own. When that happens, you don’t fight it. It’s basically the movie telling me what it wants and it told me that it wanted this so I went with it.

DRE: Except for Rabid you haven’t had a female character as the central figure in the movie. You always have strong female roles though.

CRONENBERG: Well, I think Genevieve Bujold’s character is quite strong in Dead Ringers and there are some quite strong female characters in Spider actually.

DRE: Absolutely, but not as the central figure.

CRONENBERG: Let’s put it this way, when I was casting, I cast Viggo first and then found someone who could play his wife, rather than the other way around. So for me he’s still the lead character. Certainly though, we often said that you could almost call it Scenes from a Marriage and in that sense it is sort of an equal partnership because it is a story about a couple and a family after that, rather than just about one person, so there is some truth in what you’re saying but I wouldn’t say that Maria Bello was the lead in the way that Marilyn Chambers is the lead in Rabid.

DRE: Is your process directing women any different from men since you have such strong sexual scenes in your films?

CRONENBERG: It’s the same in that you tailor your directing to the individual. It doesn’t break down by gender. It breaks down further into who is it you’re actually directing. For example I don’t work with William Hurt the same way that I will work with Viggo. They’re different guys and they work in different ways. So a good sensitive director has his general style and technique and personality that he uses but you don’t impose that on the actors. You really need to find out how the actor works, what he needs or doesn’t need and then you give that to the actor.

DRE: How was it directing young people like Ashton Holmes and Heidi Hayes in A History of Violence?

CRONENBERG: It’s exactly the same. Each kid has a different level of expertise and some of them are very raw and inexperienced and some are incredibly mature and experienced. So you just have to go with what they are rather than have some abstract technique that you’re going to try to apply to them.

DRE: I was lucking enough to speak to Holly Hunter a couple years ago and she said, that the set of Crash wasn’t the kind of place where people would relax, sit down, and read Variety. But then I’m watching a behind the scenes of A History of Violence on HBO and they had a very funny piece of you jumping into bed with Viggo and Maria joking around, was this a more relaxed set?

CRONENBERG: No I think there was a lot of joking around on Crash but it was a tighter schedule. I think Holly was really talking about what can happen in Hollywood when you have too much time and the crew kind of loses momentum and you do find that lacuna of energy. That doesn’t happen on my sets in general but I think if there had been a making of a documentary of Crash I think you would see a lot of joking and a lot of humor but not time wasting. We weren’t wasting time in A History of Violence either. But the other thing is that moment you’re talking about came at the end of the shoot. Our shoot was only 53 days which for an independent film would be a lot but for a movie of this scope is really not a heck of a lot.

DRE: I saw that you had a video blog on the History of Violence website. How was that process for you?

CRONENBERG: It’s interesting but time consuming. The process of making a movie has expanded in terms of effort and time for the director, doing commentaries for the DVD for example, finishing deleted scenes so they could be on the DVD, and doing things like a web blog. Of course for many years directors have had to go on the road with their movies and promote them and I’ve done that since the beginning. So that’s not new but the forms of it are different such as with the internet. I don’t mind writing so I didn’t find that difficult, it’s just a question of finding the time to do it. I kind of like the direct connection with the fans actually, it’s pretty neat.

DRE: Do you find it odd that people are calling this very violent movie, with strong scenes of sexuality, your most mainstream film?

CRONENBERG: Well I don’t think sex and violence have ever stopped a movie from being mainstream. But I think what they’re really noticing, is the accessibility of the characters. I think really that’s the key because mostly my characters tend to be eccentric, on the margins of society and even grotesque, like the ones in Crash. People find it hard to relate because what they’re doing is so strange to them. In those movies my job is to seduce the audience into the movie and into some kind of empathy and understanding for the characters. In this movie it’s sort of the inside out version of that. I start with a family that’s very recognizable and “very accessible” and a normal audience can relate to this family. However, then I take the audience into the movie and move them and the characters into a very dark and strange place. But to me that must be what people are talking about when they say this is mainstream. I don’t see anything else. It’s got a plot but my other movies have plots too so I don’t see what they’re talking about.

DRE: To stay in tune with your other work, is the virus in History of Violence the past or is it violence itself that’s the virus?

CRONENBERG: I don’t think that way. You’re bringing a concept, a sort of critical and analytical concept to bear on this movie. I absolutely don’t mind that, some very interesting and enlightening things can come out of that process. But that’s not a creative process, that’s an analytical and critical process. For instance when I was making the movie that thought would never have been in my mind. There were many thoughts in my mind but I don’t think about my other movies. I really take each movie on its own and try to give it what it needs individually without imposing something from the outside.

I don’t deny obviously that there is a connection. The thing is that I don’t have to force the connection because you literally make 2000 decisions a day as a director. There are decisions about everything from clothes to colors to walls to locations to actors and nobody else would make those same decisions. So the movie will be enough of you, you don’t have to force it. I don’t have to say that I have to put my thumbprint on it so the people will know it’s my movie

DRE: I read that after The Brood you made Scanners and that it was nice to relax and explode some heads. Did you make History of Violence after Spider to relax and kick some people in the face?

CRONENBERG: [laughs] No not at all. The reaction after Spider was that I didn’t make any money and I needed to do a movie that I could make some money on. In the sense that I couldn’t afford to do a low budget independent film with financing that was constantly falling apart and therefore we would all have to defer our salaries and not get paid. I literally did not make any money for two years and I could not afford to do that. On the other hand, Spider was still a wonderful experience and frankly I think it’s the other half of this movie. It also is about identity and the construction of it and the consequences of it. In Spider you have a man who does not have the creative will for whatever reason, to hold his identity together. He keeps disintegrating and falls apart. But each movie has a family in it with a past that has a huge impact on the present. So I think they would be pretty interesting on a double bill for a certain very special audience.

DRE: Maybe in Japan.

Do you feel that when Tom Stall is leading this small town life he’s hiding from who he is or he’s changed who he really is?

CRONENBERG: I think he’s really changed. Certainly the way we played it. But he could choose to be anything. He suddenly chooses to be part of this American mythology. This ideal guy in this ideal small town with a family and he’s been that way for 20 years. At that point he has really wanted to become somebody else. If he got hit by a bus before the bad guys came to town he would have been buried as Tom Stall because that’s who he would have been. Tom Stall is not actually a violent person. He didn’t have that incredible anger and rage.

DRE: When you showed the second sex scene you show the affect the violence had on Tom and his wife.

CRONENBERG: That’s right and when you see the movie a second time it does become a different movie and only then can you really appreciate Viggo’s performance because we were conscious of making kind of two movies at once. For me the most violent moment of the movie is when he slaps his son. That’s a shocking moment and you definitely get the feeling that it’s the first time he ever laid a hand on either of his kids violently. It depresses and shocks him as well as shocking his son because the violence cat is out of the bag and it’s hard to put it back in. Once again it’s a tool, but the adrenaline is there and it comes out in the sexuality as well.

DRE: I remember after The Fly was such a success you decided to put I think like two or three years into making a project that was probably your most difficult up to that point, Dead Ringers. If A History of Violence is a success, close to that level, do you have passion project you want to do?

CRONENBERG: It’s not really a strategy. It’s true that people did tell me in the old days “if you get a hit movie, then you can get your weird movies made” but that turned out to be completely untrue. Dead Ringers was completely difficult to finance even after The Fly. It was very agonizing and scary and almost falling apart all the time. What people want you to do is do another movie like The Fly. They’re not stupid. They read Dead Ringers and they know it’s a difficult movie to sell, so I don’t think that there’s a relationship between having a success, for me anyway, and then doing a difficult film. The opportunities to do various movies come by chance.

DRE: I remember there was someone who said that your films have a weird air to them because it’s like America but its not.

CRONENBERG: Yes, that was a producer who said many years ago, “For Americans your movies are really weird. The streets are like America, but they’re not. The people are like Americans but they’re not. It’s like the pod people kind of thing.” I’m thinking, “Well that’s us Canadians you know, we’re the American pod people.” We’re like American people but we’re not, we’re quite different. I’ve only really set maybe three films in America. One was The Dead Zone, Fast Company and History of Violence was another one that had scenes that were set in America. But I have still never shot a foot of film in America.

DRE: How was it working with [production designer] Carol [Spier] again after you didn’t work with her in Spider?

CRONENBERG: It was fine. You have to remember that Howard Shore didn’t do the music for the Dead Zone and that’s about the only one he hasn’t done. Every once in a while there are circumstances and in the case of Spider, Carol was doing Blade II in Prague. She was there for nine months so she couldn’t do Spider.

DRE: What is your working relationship with Howard Shore?

CRONENBERG: He’s done just about every one of my movies and we’ve known each other for 30 years. When we’re working we have 100 percent interaction. Any script that I’m considering to do, I send it to a group of people. Carol Spier, Peter Suschitzky my director of photography, Howard and my editor Ron Sanders who I’ve worked with for 35 years. I just want feedback from them and get them started thinking about it even before we’ve shot a foot of film. So the discussions begin very early on and get more intense and Howard sends me synthesized possibilities and themes and ideas and we discuss that. In the case of History of Violence we certainly discussed the American-ness of the movie and the western tone of it. He started to look at John Ford movies and stuff like that to get a feel for the American landscape musically. A little Aaron Copland and a little western.

DRE: One of the things that makes History of Violence so profound is that you’re Canadian making an essay about the history of violence in America.

CRONENBERG: Yeah, it’s a tendency I have and I relate it somewhat weirdly to Samuel Beckett. There are very easy things that you can do in films, especially now, to disguise yourself and make things easy and protect yourself. I’m as vulnerable as my actors, maybe more so when I direct a movie. Maybe not in the same physical way but it’s very tempting to hide behind stuff. But I try not to do it; I try not to get overly technique-y. There’s a raw simplicity that’s if you can do it right, it’s incredibly powerful because there’s a certain truth that’s right there. But if you blow it, there’s nothing to hide behind. That’s why you get guys that do jittery camera stuff when it’s just a guy sitting in a room talking. I’ve cast this guy for his face, for his voice, for his acting so I just want you to see that. Let’s just trust all that you’ve done and let’s look at this guy talking. I don’t need to do fancy, silly stuff that has no meaning or artistic purpose.

DRE: A History of Violence, is a real commentary on what’s going on in America right now with what President Bush has helped bring about, this Christian Right push. How has directing scenes of sexuality changed for you over the years?

CRONENBERG: Nobody asked me to do anything different. There were no sex scenes in the script that I got originally and I did ask for these to be written but I had more to do with the characters and an examination of the marriage. I didn’t really think you could examine a marriage without alluding to its sexuality. But I don’t feel any outside pressure one way or the other. Actually it really only has to do with the movie and the particular people you’re making the movie with. I don’t feel that my approach to it is any different that it ever was. It’s always just a question of what the movie wants and what does the movie need to work. Each movie is its own little universe with its own separate eco-system. You’re making a big mistake if you try to force some outside abstract structure on it so I don’t really think in those terms. I really just think “okay what do I want to happen here.” Then if there are battles to be fought after that, then that’s a different thing, you fight those battles. In this case there were no battles over the sex scenes; I mean the MPAA didn’t ask me to cut anything so there just hasn’t been a problem.

DRE: I saw a still photograph that you took of a chair by Lake Ontario and you just did some still pictures for Premiere Magazine; are you getting more into photography?

CRONENBERG: I actually did my first professional photo shoot for French Premiere Magazine which I was very proud of. But I had always avoided still photography. If you’ve ever seen my short film Camera you would know why. But with digital I came back to still photography. It was always frustrating doing film, especially when you’re doing color because you’ve got a lab with a guy who does your color timing and you don’t know who he is. Your pictures come back, the color’s wrong, the contrast is wrong. But with digital you have such fine control. So I really came back to still photography after having abandoned it for many years. I decided at Cannes to have some fun by shooting photos of the photographers. They loved it. People asked me if I thought they would be offended but they adored it because I was one of them. They actually asked me to sit down with them on their raised tiers. It was really sweet.

DRE: Did you see your actors in a different light?

CRONENBERG: No but it’s very good rehearsal for when you’re actually on the set shooting. It’s a different act but it’s connected.

DRE: eXistenZ was adapted into a graphic novel; do you have any interest in doing comic books yourself?

CRONENBERG: I was interested in being involved in the graphic novel that was made out of eXistenZ so it was a collaboration with me. But it’s not my art form.

DRE: I got to speak to Albert Brooks a few years ago and the DVDs of his films are very spare. I asked him about that and he said “The DVD is a garbage can now. Everything that used to go in the trash goes on the DVD.” Criterion Collection has made some great DVDs out of three of your films. For your other films that aren’t treated as well do you want to get more involved with making those DVDs?

CRONENBERG: I’ve always been as involved as I possibly could be because I always knew right from the beginning, even before there were DVDs, that my movies would be seen by more people on a TV screen than they would in the theaters. That’s why I never have done a really widescreen movie. In fact, I came up with an aspect ratio that would work for my movies right from the beginning because I knew that it would fit on movie screens in America and in Europe where the aspect ratios are different. It turned out that I accidentally came upon the formula that has now become this standard TV widescreen. So all of my movies, even the earliest ones will fit beautifully there.

The thing about The Dead Zone and The Brood DVDs is that nobody asked me to do a commentary or be involved in those.

For The Fly initially Fox said, “We’re coming out with a DVD of The Fly, will you do commentary?” I said, “Only if you let me be involved in the color timing because it has never been properly transferred to video in any form.” They said no and that was a while ago. I couldn’t believe that they wouldn’t spend the money. So I said, “Fine, I’m not doing the commentary.” They said “Eventually we’ll do a special edition.” Well that has now happened. I’ve done the commentary, I was involved in the transfer and I agreed to show some famous deleted scenes. The famous cat-monkey scene is there and some other things that the fans were clamoring for. My attitude has changed because I can see that the whole art form is shifting in an interesting way. One of the reasons that I didn’t want deleted scenes on a DVD was because you never get to finish them. You cut them, you decide that you don’t want them in the movie so you never get to fine cut them or do a sound mix. So if you show them, they have to be unfinished in a raw, not proper way. So strangely enough, for History of Violence, there are two deleted scenes that we did. We fine cut them, we sound mixed, got some music on them and that’s the first time I’ve ever done that.

DRE: Have you been in a position in which your work was impeded by someone with more power?

CRONENBERG: I tend to be very Machiavellian. I would rather negotiate and talk and manipulate and be deceptive and do whatever, than have an open confrontation. That always takes it to a different level. I am essentially a non-violent person. I’ve managed to be pretty successful in terms of getting what I want in a movie. I leave people very happy with what we’ve done, even when I end up getting what I wanted and they don’t get what they wanted. I have to say that with all of my movies if there’s something in them you don’t like it’s my fault and I can’t blame somebody else for recutting it. The only moments where I’ve had that happen are with the MPAA, which is not technically a censor. For example, with Crash, the company Blockbuster will not stock an NC-17 film. So with Crash, which was released as an NC-17 film, in order to get it into any Blockbuster, I had to cut 10 minutes out of it to have it be an R. I wasn’t very successful in stopping that from happening because I had a contract that said it had to have an R if somebody wanted it. On the other hand, when the Canadian version of Blockbuster tried to do the same, I did go very public saying, “Look, that’s the American ratings. In Canada, we released this film as what we call Restricted and there should not be a cut version in Canadian Blockbuster.” They did back down. But you do what you can. Who knows how it was cut in Finland. Who knows where it was cut in Japan. I can’t keep on top of every TV version that’s around the world. So there’s a point where you have to let go.

DRE: What do you think of your nephew Aaron Woodley’s movie Rhinoceros Eyes?

CRONENBERG: I thought it was terrific. I really liked it a lot. I thought he did a wonderful job with it. I think he’s a very talented and special kid.

DRE: I know you’ve only produced a couple movies that aren’t yours like the Bruce Wagner film I'm Losing You, would you do something like that for Aaron?

CRONENBERG: I think he needs a more serious producer than me frankly and I think he’s working with some right now. When it came to Bruce’s films, if there’s anything I can do to help a first time director, someone who I really admire like Bruce, I’m happy to help. But I’m not really the kind of producer who can go out and raise tons of money and make sure that the film is distributed properly and all that. That’s a different kind of producing and I think that’s what Aaron would need. He’s doing something with Lee Daniels right now and I think that’s a good thing.

DRE: I read that famous interview that you did with Salmon Rushdie, that helped inside eXistenZ where you talk about how beautiful you thought the computer game Myst was. Then I read in the New York Times Magazine that you’re designing a videogame with your son.

CRONENBERG: That’s right, we’re playing with that so we’ll see where that goes. It’s been a strange and interesting process. I don’t know enough about videogames to know whether I’m getting the full flower of the experience or not. I’m also working a Toronto company that has not done a videogame before so it’s kind of a learning experience for all of us.

DRE: Do you see it as puzzle game like Myst or one with more action?

CRONENBERG: This would not be an action game. I’m not that interested in that particularly, just because I’m not really interested in that in my movies. It’s more of a suspense thriller mystery kind of game.

DRE: Ashton Holmes let it slip that you have a Ferrari movie script.

CRONENBERG: I do, that’s Red Cars, an old script. It was just published by in a beautiful coffee table book with many wonderful illustrations from the Ferrari archives. We previewed it at Venice and you can go to their website. It’s a movie that I seem unable to get made but it’s nice that it got made into this book.

DRE: We’re doing this interview for SuicideGirls. Many of the girls featured on SuicideGirls have tattoos and piercings. Have you ever seen any David Cronenberg related tattoos on anybody?

CRONENBERG: I haven’t but I’d love to. I get quite jealous when I hear that Clive Barker gets to sign all kinds of people’s anatomy at his book signings and stuff. I’ve never been asked to do that and I would be very interested to see photos of Cronenberg tattoos.

This movie is worse than Freddy vs. Jason, I say!  :yabbse-rolleyes:

...now where can I see it?

I can't tell weather i like this film or not. I left the theater thinking i hated it. But like many of you have said; this film and its messege stays with you. The more and more i think about the movie I begin to understand what i didn't like about it. I suggest when seeing this movie not to jump right into what you don't like about the film and to give it sometime to sink in.

My full review. (http://www.road-dog-productions.com/reviews/archives/2005/10/a_history_of_vi.html)

War Of The Worlds is a B-movie directed as an art film. Nothing more. Critics are grossly overthinking it.

SOMEBODY HAS ILLEGALLY ALTERED MY POST!

If you disagree with what I write, then write a fucking reply. But do not edit my fucking post.

THIS SHOULD SAY:

This is a B-movie directed as an art film. Nothing more. Critics are grossly overthinking it.

Ha!

after all the glowing reviews i was highy anticipating this.

after seeing it, my only way of justifying all these great reviews was to put the film in context of the market place. With all the recent dreck, I think critics were eager to have anything that was the least bit interesting and different. In the context of the brutally boring past months, this film is a pleasant departure - however far from brilliant. Ed Harris/ Ms. Bello elevated the film above what I found to be pretty commonplace material.

Many have been praising it for it's brilliant meditation on violence and it's linear tendencies. In concept this is quite an interesting idea. However I do not feel that History of Violence polarized such concepts. I find a film like Natural Born Killers (although not a huge fan) much more intriguing and effective in personifying the effect of learned and inherited violent tendencies.

I liked it.

Not as much as Spider, but I liked it.  

Quote from: mutinyco
This is a B-movie directed as an art film. Nothing more.

It's funny that you say this because as most people realize, the majority of his films are the exact opposite.  Art films made as B-movies.

I think everything's overrated and this is probably no exception, but it's ridiculous to say it's "nothing more" than a B-movie because B-movies don't have anything to say and whether you feel this did a good job or not, it had more going on.

The thing I really like about Cronenberg is that he can make you feel that there's more going on in a scene than appears, whether there actually is or not.  I'm still waiting on him to make a film that lives up to that feeling though... one that really clicks with me the way I feel he's trying to.  I haven't given up that he will yet.

I really liked this.

Not sure why though.  I think it was just the overall tone, and how the story built up.  All of the performances were top notch.  Viggos trip in the the third act seemed a bit off.  But I guess the very end pays off of that, and beautifully.

B

That's the exact way I felt about it as well.

you know you have the best/worst girlfriend ever when she likes this movie more than you do ..  :yabbse-undecided:  :yabbse-lipsrsealed:

Quote from: RegularKarateI liked it.

Not as much as Spider, but I liked it.  

Quote from: mutinyco
This is a B-movie directed as an art film. Nothing more.

It's funny that you say this because as most people realize, the majority of his films are the exact opposite.  Art films made as B-movies.

I think everything's overrated and this is probably no exception, but it's ridiculous to say it's "nothing more" than a B-movie because B-movies don't have anything to say and whether you feel this did a good job or not, it had more going on.

I think that considering what is going on, it's extremely disconnected from what the critics are billing it as: basically an all-out masterpiece.

I don't know whether they genuinely believe this, or whether it's another example of their support for a safe, well-made film that's hardly exceptional: Sideways, Mystic River, L.A. Confidential...

Don't misunderstand me. I'm not slogging those films. They're solid. I simply don't believe they rise to the level of praise they encountered. Perhaps, that's what the critics like about them: they're solid. But, for me, that's not enough if you want to throw the "masterpiece" word around.

Solid = 3 stars.
Originality + innovation = masterpiece. (when successful, of course)

Really, I can only disagree with you on Sideways there... and even then, I see where you're coming from.

Well, if you were a critic and had to sit through piece of shit films 80% of the time (and that's a modest number), then seeing these films would probably knock you out of the park.

They're good, even great (i think LA Confidential is as good as they say), but when people like us with low cash and discerning tastes have to be choosy, we tend to be too critical about the best of the bunch. I think if we and the critics met somewhere in the middle, that's where it needs to be.

Quote from: mutinyco
Originality + innovation = masterpiece. (when successful, of course)

Actually, originality + innovation = redundancy

well, I'll interject with a very good, not great comment as well.  It was well worth my money and I'd like to see it again, but it was not a masterpiece (and that is ok).

That opening shot was pretty incredible.

Quote from: mutinyco
I think that considering what is going on, it's extremely disconnected from what the critics are billing it as: basically an all-out masterpiece.

I don't know whether they genuinely believe this, or whether it's another example of their support for a safe, well-made film that's hardly exceptional: Sideways, Mystic River, L.A. Confidential...

Don't misunderstand me. I'm not slogging those films. They're solid. I simply don't believe they rise to the level of praise they encountered. Perhaps, that's what the critics like about them: they're solid. But, for me, that's not enough if you want to throw the "masterpiece" word around.

Solid = 3 stars.
Originality + innovation = masterpiece. (when successful, of course)

Well, I'm not afraid to rate it like the critics.  This film was strong, and if I must, I'll use the damn word masterpiece because of what it accomplished.

SPOILERS

The opening was such a fantastic set up.  This is one of those movies that I really wish I went into blind though - without viewing the trailer or reading about it because I would have been led to believe that these two thugs would have played out through the entire picture.  The way it opens with them then goes into the life of this family and then of course how the criminals enter their lives and then they're gone like that.  I soo love when a movie steers into a direction like this.  The same with Ed Harris' character.  I remember thinking how Ghostboy said the film was short and to the point, and when he was killed, I thought, 'damn, that was damn short and straight to the damn point.'  In that moment, Tom was safe, he got rid of what was haunting him from his past.  And then of course with his wife witnessing his actions this time, the side note of the brother comes into play leading into what I thought was an outstanding third act.  I just loved the set ups and misleadings.  I loved how we saw the genes flowing through the son and what that eventually leads to.

END SPOILERS.

This is the best film of the year for me, thus far.  The entire cast was excellent, but not enough are mentioning Viggo.  He played his character so calm and believable making you wonder, 'was he or wasn't he?'

All of these things are what didn't work for me. This really was B material. And when you sew in these intellectualized plot points, that's exactly what they feel like. The choices seemed too clean. Too logical. Too thematically justified -- his wife is an attorney, his son learns to use violence, the sex scene on the stairs combining attraction/repulsion and love/violence.

Ultimately, I wasn't convinced that THIS film -- this narrative -- truly formed a solid foundation for the themes being expressed.

I would've enjoyed it more had the critical establishment not swarmed around it as they did. Because I think, while it's a good movie, it's simply not on the level they're trying to raise it to.

Quote from: mutinycoAll of these things are what didn't work for me. This really was B material. And when you sew in these intellectualized plot points, that's exactly what they feel like. The choices seemed too clean. Too logical. Too thematically justified -- his wife is an attorney, his son learns to use violence, the sex scene on the stairs combining attraction/repulsion and love/violence.

Whaaat?  You mean B grade or B-movie material?  Cause I hope you wouldn't give a B-movie three stars, that would be ridiculous.  I don't get too clean and too logical and too thematically justified -- did you understand why his son learns to use the violence?  Did you see her reaction after the sex scene on the stairs?  How does this apply to all your too's.  

QuoteUltimately, I wasn't convinced that THIS film -- this narrative -- truly formed a solid foundation for the themes being expressed.

Wha-wha-whaaat?

QuoteI would've enjoyed it more had the critical establishment not swarmed around it as they did. Because I think, while it's a good movie, it's simply not on the level they're trying to raise it to.

Why do you give a sailing shit about this?  And how could you let it influence your enjoyment?

Quote from: POZER!

Quote from: mutinyco
I would've enjoyed it more had the critical establishment not swarmed around it as they did. Because I think, while it's a good movie, it's simply not on the level they're trying to raise it to.

Why do you give a sailing shit about this?  And how could you let it influence your enjoyment?

Its like expecting Lucky Charms and getting Cheerios...sure its still good, but no fuckin marshmellows...

dumb.

the truth hurts...

sure i put it in a strange(/what i thought was funny) but you can't deny that when you're expecting something in the realm of one of the best movies of the year and you find it to be just "good" (as many of us did, myself included), its harder to enjoy it for what it is, and easier to see the things that were disappointing.

Pretty Awseome movie, although it was quite frusterating that there was a baby in the theatre, a cell phone went off and there were these blabbering teenagers talking throughout it all.

MINOR SPOILERS

Quote from: mutinycoThis is a B-movie directed as an art film.

I love this movie, but I know what you mean. The plot is superficially normal, even formulaic. But that's not what we're looking for here. The beauty is in Viggo Mortensen's eyes, in the constrasts and revelations, in the filmmaking (remember my "style is substance" argument?), the flashes of violent compulsions in each character when they're at their most vulnerable. (The daughter may be an exception to that last one.) It's not a highly complex or ambitious film, but--and I agree with Ghostboy--it does what it does almost perfectly.

Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanMINOR SPOILERS

Quote from: mutinycoThis is a B-movie directed as an art film.

I love this movie, but I know what you mean. The plot is superficially normal, even formulaic. But that's not what we're looking for here. The beauty is in Viggo Mortensen's eyes, in the constrasts and revelations, in the filmmaking (remember my "style is substance" argument?), the flashes of violent compulsions in each character when they're at their most vulnerable. (The daughter may be an exception to that last one.) It's not a highly complex or ambitious film, but--and I agree with Ghostboy--it does what it does almost perfectly.

:shock: you watched a movie!  :-D

Quote from: modage:shock: you watched a movie!  :-D

that was one of the only correct uses of the :shock: smiley: before the sentence in which it is explained, creating a sense of unexplained shock, followed by a new smiley which expresses how the explanation has changed the explainer.

I enjoyed this film. Not even the film's own admittance of formula could save it though.

*spoiler*
Not only is the film formulaic, but the ultimate problem is that it is formulaic to two major directors: Alfred Hitchcock and Sam Peckinpah. Hitchcock for the ideal American neighborhood disturbed by violence and Peckinpah for the characters unexpected identification with violence. (the son beating up the bully and the wife & husband making love during a fight) After the film does build up the characters and stories along these two mosaics, it gives in to absurdity. The third act is a violent confrontation with a long lost brother, but not in the Peckinpah way that speaks for the theme of man's obcession with violence, but a cool type of way where the main character has that invisibility of fighting only in movies where not only can he kill everyone, but can move with stealth beyond them. The killing, very gruesome, looks too easy. It is also too satisfying to the eyes.

Yet, there is something strangely appealing about the film. The friend I watched it with just hated it. I found myself laughing a lot, especially during the violent scenes. The film struck a tone of perversity I think I find naturally humorous. It almost reminds me of why I like Scent of a Woman. Its overkill on crudeness for a story really very wholesome.

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on November 10, 2005, 02:33:58 AM
I enjoyed this film. Not even the film's own admittance of formula could save it though.

*spoiler*
Not only is the film formulaic, but the ultimate problem is that it is formulaic to two major directors: Alfred Hitchcock and Sam Peckinpah. Hitchcock for the ideal American neighborhood disturbed by violence and Peckinpah for the characters unexpected identification with violence. (the son beating up the bully and the wife & husband making love during a fight) After the film does build up the characters and stories along these two mosaics, it gives in to absurdity. The third act is a violent confrontation with a long lost brother, but not in the Peckinpah way that speaks for the theme of man's obcession with violence, but a cool type of way where the main character has that invisibility of fighting only in movies where not only can he kill everyone, but can move with stealth beyond them. The killing, very gruesome, looks too easy. It is also too satisfying to the eyes.

Yet, there is something strangely appealing about the film. The friend I watched it with just hated it. I found myself laughing a lot, especially during the violent scenes. The film struck a tone of perversity I think I find naturally humorous. It almost reminds me of why I like Scent of a Woman. Its overkill on crudeness for a story really very wholesome.

SPOILERS

I think the 3rd act you speak of works.  Cronenberg sets it up to make you feel guilty for your feelings (a la Lee in Do the Right Thing).  The cinematic cool of the 3rd act creates and excitement and glamour to the violence, yet after he gets back home you feel really guilty for indulging in it (just as the main character does).

Quote from: SHAFTR on November 10, 2005, 03:24:00 AM

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on November 10, 2005, 02:33:58 AM
I enjoyed this film. Not even the film's own admittance of formula could save it though.

*spoiler*
Not only is the film formulaic, but the ultimate problem is that it is formulaic to two major directors: Alfred Hitchcock and Sam Peckinpah. Hitchcock for the ideal American neighborhood disturbed by violence and Peckinpah for the characters unexpected identification with violence. (the son beating up the bully and the wife & husband making love during a fight) After the film does build up the characters and stories along these two mosaics, it gives in to absurdity. The third act is a violent confrontation with a long lost brother, but not in the Peckinpah way that speaks for the theme of man's obcession with violence, but a cool type of way where the main character has that invisibility of fighting only in movies where not only can he kill everyone, but can move with stealth beyond them. The killing, very gruesome, looks too easy. It is also too satisfying to the eyes.

Yet, there is something strangely appealing about the film. The friend I watched it with just hated it. I found myself laughing a lot, especially during the violent scenes. The film struck a tone of perversity I think I find naturally humorous. It almost reminds me of why I like Scent of a Woman. Its overkill on crudeness for a story really very wholesome.

SPOILERS

I think the 3rd act you speak of works.  Cronenberg sets it up to make you feel guilty for your feelings (a la Lee in Do the Right Thing).  The cinematic cool of the 3rd act creates and excitement and glamour to the violence, yet after he gets back home you feel really guilty for indulging in it (just as the main character does).

As much as I understand that interpretation, it comes off to me as an excuse. If the third act really wanted to register with the audience, the plateau of cheap thrill wouldn't have been the answer. It would have been emotional identification for revenge. We never got that depth. The film is formulaic and worst, imitative.

Hummm I think all the stuff I read about this ruined it a bit :(
I was expecting much more violence....(it was pretty full on but more acts of violence!) more sex, more twists and for it to be a much darker film....so I felt pretty unsatisfied by what I got.

Quote from: penfold0101 on November 10, 2005, 10:31:04 AM
I was expecting much more violence....(it was pretty full on but more acts of violence!) more sex, more twists and for it to me a much darker film....so I felt pretty unsatisfied by what I got.

yeah, that's your fault.

Very true, guess I should stay away from place like this then :ponder:

It was good, not the  powerhouse I was expecting. It didn't knock me on my ass, but the ending was just about perfect. Many realistic scenes with the violence, the household, and the marriage.

Quote from: penfold0101 on November 10, 2005, 10:36:05 AM
Very true, guess I should stay away from place like this then :ponder:

No, you just should have seen Saw 2 instead.

I liked it... Viggo was very good... the whole story or cinematography was nothing special though

New Line will release A History of Violence on 2/28 (SRP $28.98). The film will be offered on disc in anamorphic widescreen video, with Dolby Digital and DTS 5.1 audio. Extras will include commentary by director David Cronenberg, a deleted scene (with commentary by Cronenberg), 4 featurettes (including Acts of Violence, Violence's History: United States Version vs. International Version, The Unmaking of Scene 44 and Too Commercial for Cannes) and the film's theatrical trailer.

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thedigitalbits.com%2Farticles%2Fmiscgfx%2Fcovers4%2Fhistoryofviolencedvd.jpg&hash=f3e687df58a2a74ee4d6303f0802a258d5de53bd)

I finally saw this.  Glad I waited though, b/c I got to catch a Cronenberg Q&A afterwards.  Man, does that dude make you feel dumb.  So smart, so to the point.

But anyway, I really liked the movie.  I thought I was going to hate it after the first few scenes of incredibly spot-on-foreshadowed dialogue ("My wife thought I was some other person," and "There's no such thing as monsters" BARF), but when I heard "I shoulda killed you back in Philly," I was bought and paid for.  I'm a western whore, and this is probably as good as it's gonna get these days.  The performances were stellar all around, and goddamn where did Hurt pull that game from?  Amazing.  His psychotic/sad clown expression just killed me. 

Finally saw this and it only reaffirmed what a sucker I am for Cronenberg.


SPOILERS possibly




I love how Cronenberg approached the movie.  It wasn't just that a violent act begot another violent act, although that was true.  It starts with the scuffle at the diner, then more and more violence happens like the opening of a floodgate, but the nature of the violence becomes more grotesque, and visually it's more gruesome.  For instance, the first fight isn't anything too graphic.  A man gets hit in the face with a full pot of coffee and the other is shot.  As the tension lessens, we are shown a quick glimpse of the man's face, which appears to be totally fucked up.  As the movie progresses, the scenes of violence get so much worse. In this way, we see how the violence runs their through their lives and coats their actions. 

The first sex scene starts out playful and innocent, to a degree.  His wife dresses up like a cheerleader to spruce up their sex life, whatever.  The following act turns into a very aggressive scene, almost looking like wrestling.  Later, the sex is violence into sex, never declining into full sex, just seeming to dip into sexuality.  The violence interweaves with everything, even between father and son where he hits his son to show his son a lesson about not using violence.  This shows a sense of inevitability with violence when it comes to a balance.  Violence only breeds more violence, and it gets worse and worse with every swing of the pendulum. 

The violence never even seems to end in the end of the movie, just a main aggressor is removed, but a rift is sent among the family.  If you deny what causes aggression, showing how violence solves the problem only shows us the way to cure all problems is to jump to extremes and skip the middle man.  A History of Violence wants to show us how volatile a thing violence is, and the natural condition is to perpetuate it.  It doesn't necessarily tell us what to do about it, or tell us how it starts but it seems clear, albeit indirect, that to overcome violence you have to remove yourself from it. Though, the more I think about that, it also seemed to show the guys hunting down a man who declared a new life for himself and tried to be relatively pacifistic.

So, as it seems, A History Of Violence seems to tell us that violence is a horrible thing and it's bigger than humans can control.  Survival of the fittest, at it's baser point...

Well, it was based on a comic.  As for the filming, I really enjoy Cronenberg's little touches throughout the film.

I left this film very frustrated.  There was something about it that didn't feel right.  I didn't realize exactly what it was until I read a review and it hit it with a single line: "The problem is Cronenberg has made a morality tale without infusing a lick of morality into it." 

I'd be curious to hear what the lovers of this film make of that quote.

Well it's a tale of morality that becomes overshadowed by amorality. I think that's the point. His history starts manifesting itself into his present life. I dunno, I can't really answer such a statement without specific examples. A general, academic summation doesn't work for me.

Quote"The problem is Cronenberg has made a morality tale without infusing a lick of morality into it."

That seems to be Cronenberg's style, though.

Very dark, twisted versions of a message that could be said in a much cleaner way.

i saw it last night.

spoiler

i would have liked to see the the eyes of his family members instead of just his at the end. for me, the story wasn't nearly as much about him as it was about his family.

I'll just say that it was very effective for me.  It was a good yarn told well--PLUS some moments of mad genius that Cronenberg really does best.  Some of the most effective use of violence I've seen.  Lots of great suspense.  I also really like seeing realistic sex, especially when it absolutely fits the moment and the characters (plus they're married--so it's extra sweet).  I know it carries a "raunchy" stigma, but I find realistic sex to be quite lovely, and healthy for cinema (American cinema especially)... if that makes sense.

I don't think Hurt should have been nominated (not that he wasn't good, it was just... essentially an extended cameo), and I forget if Maria Bello was nominated or not, but I thought she was fantastic in this.  I think the role was solid enough that any decent actress could get something good out of it, but I really admired just how fully Bello threw herself into the part.

I didn't care for the child acting, but that's hardly worth mentioning.

This is out on DVD now, and with the XIXAX Awards going on, I certainly think this deserves a viewing by those who haven't seen it before nominating.

Well done.

A-.

i just sucking cronenbergs dick again...after spider, i was like damn, that was a mature peice of work...crafted so creepily...then he lays this on me...and i was floored...you just got to love a film that makes you cheer when you see people inflict just cause violence on each other instead of wince...great morality play..and i will take viggo seriously for now on...and i think bello would play a fantastic alchoholic...even more than my used up laura dern..

Quote from: pyramid machine on March 23, 2006, 09:14:30 PMyou just got to love a film that makes you cheer when you see people inflict just cause violence on each other instead of wince...great morality play

But how long were you cheering? The gut reaction is you do feel excited by the "just cause" violence...but any good feelings of justification seem to fade almost instantly. At least that was the reaction I had (especially seeing it the theater the first time around).

Spoilers--It's like when Jack shoots Fogarty in the back with the shotgun. Woohoo he saved the day...just cause violence. But a second later he becomes very uncomfortable with his actions. He knows he can't get a do-over...he has killed someone and that's never going away.--End Spoilers

Other than my confusion with your statement, however, I also love this film. Viggo essentially plays two roles...and does it brilliantly.

Quote from: Lucid on March 29, 2006, 10:47:46 PM
Great film, worth multiple viewings.

Couldn't agree more. I certainly didn't sufficiently appreciate the subtleties in Viggo's performance the first time around. It's extraordinary.

Interesting choice of words by Cronenberg...complicit in the violence. I'll have to check out those features.