A History of Violence

[MacGuffin]

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."

[Brazoliange]

damn, this sounds like a fun movie.

[MacGuffin]

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.



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.

[MacGuffin]

Trailer here.

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.

[modage]

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.

[jonas]

Definitely seeing this.

[B.C. Long]

Man. This looks amazing. I'm stoked.

[Pedro]

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.

[SiliasRuby]

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

[MacGuffin]

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.

[modage]

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

[MacGuffin]

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."

[Ghostboy]

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.

[socketlevel]

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."

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-

[Ghostboy]

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.

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.