A History of Violence

[modage]

MINOR SPOILERS

This 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.

you watched a movie!  

[picolas]

you watched a movie!  

that was one of the only correct uses of the 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.

[Gold Trumpet]

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.

[SHAFTR]

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).

[Gold Trumpet]

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.

[penfold0101]

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.

[Pubrick]

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.

[penfold0101]

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

[The Red Vine]

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.

[Pozer]

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

No, you just should have seen Saw 2 instead.

[Kal]

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

[MacGuffin]

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.

[Weak2ndAct]

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. 

[ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ]

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.

[life_boy]

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.