1283 A History of Violence

[Matt]

would there be some way you could do a cut and paste job to that for us nonsubscribers?

http://www.bugmenot.com/

[Fletch F. Fletch]

The Village Voice also interviews Cronenberg, here:

http://villagevoice.com/film/0538,flim1,67990,20.html

Also a blog for the movie with behind the scenes clips:

http://www.historyofviolence.com/cronenbergblog/

And an interview with Cronenberg over at Salon.com:

http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/review/2005/09/22/btm/

[Gordon]

Both ends of the artisitic spectrum, folks.

[denti alligator]

Saw it today and was floored. Absolutely brilliant, imho. I'll post a longer review later next week.

[Andre Jurieu]

Saw it today and was floored. Absolutely brilliant, imho. I'll post a longer review later next week.

I had the same reaction last week (maybe closer to two weeks ago?) at TIFF. If you're trying to review it, watch out, because it's a film that could be endlessly written about. I certainly couldn't stop myself. However, it's also the type of film that will result in some pretty severe reactions due to its ambiguity about its subject matter.

[lord_clyde]

Saw it today and was floored. Absolutely brilliant, imho. I'll post a longer review later next week.

I had the same reaction last week (maybe closer to two weeks ago?) at TIFF. If you're trying to review it, watch out, because it's a film that could be endlessly written about. I certainly couldn't stop myself. However, it's also the type of film that will result in some pretty severe reactions due to its ambiguity about its subject matter.

Now THIS sounds like my kind of movie!

[Napoleon]

What is special about this is how easy it seems to be. Very unfussy direction, he just lets the story flow.
Also good to see a central performance that does not rely in histrionics. If it was a different famous liberal playing Tom, this could well have been unbearable.

[colinr0380]

A review from The Guardian website by J.G. Ballard.

[The Invunche]

Viggo Mortensen pulling rubber reptiles out of his drinking cup on The Daily Show: AWKWARD.

Short interview with Cronenberg at Joblo http://www.joblo.com/index.php?id=8722

I especially enjoyed this part:

[quote]The sequence with William Hurt is one that some might call Tarantino-esque.

I don't think what I'm doing is the same as what he's doing at all, because I think his movies are only about movies. They're only about other movies. It's all retro. His references are never to human life, but to human life as filtered through old movies. He's basically always doing remakes and pastiches of old movies. And I saw those 70s movies when they came out – they were bad then. Why would you want to do a remake of a bad 70s movie? I don't see that remaking it makes it good somehow.

What it does do is make it kind of “post-modernistâ€

[backstreetsbackalright]

The dependably unreliable contactmusic.com runs the following story:

Eccentric film-maker DAVID CRONENBERG shocked his cast and crew on the set of new movie A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE, by publicly performing sex scenes with his wife.

The director hoped his explicit displays of affection with his wife would help stars VIGGO MORTENSEN and MARIA BELLO, who play man and wife in the film, feel more comfortable during their sex scenes together. But, instead, the Cronenbergs just left everyone on the set stunned.

THE LORD OF THE RINGS star Mortensen says, "There's a couple of fairly racy sex scenes in the movie... between Maria Bello and myself. David, trying to be helpful, as usual, thought it might be a good idea to call up his wife and have her come down to the set.

"The crew and Maria and I just sat and watched while he and his wife got into something comfortable - nothing - and they started to say, 'We want you to (do this).' Maria and I were both going, 'OK, we get it.'

"This is a testament to their relationship, they kept going and they kept going and then we broke for lunch and some time in the evening Maria and I got to have a crack at it.

"Instead of putting us at ease, we actually were kind of freaked out... Maybe some things ought to stay private."

Here's the link:
http://contactmusic.com/new/xmlfeed.nsf ... blic%20sex

[Andre Jurieu]

The dependably unreliable contactmusic.com runs the following story:

They might not be the most credible source, but all that stuff is straight from Mortensen's interview with David Letterman on Monday. After watching both the Letterman and Stewart interviews it seems clear that Viggo isn't the most engaging subject to interview.

[Dylan]

Alright, I saw this yesterday and I can't say that I was very impressed, and while I've never been a Cronenberg fan (other than "Dead Ringers"), I'm trying to understand why people think this film is so great. I wrote a short review of it this morning, which I will paste at the bottom, and I'd really like to read some defenses. Anyway, I look forward to comments.

My thoughts (spoilers, don't read if you haven't seen it):

"A History of Violence" is decent enough, but I must confess that it kind of bored me overall. Let me explain, outside of the opening scene, the first half of the film is basically the trailer, so if you've seen the trailer, the first 50 or so minutes are basically waiting for a plot element that isn't in the trailer (that's marketing for you). Alright, some murderers enter our protagonist's restaurant as its closing and demand coffee, and suddenly they take out their guns and violently menace and abuse people there, wherein our protagonist pulls a fast move on one of them, grabs a gun, and shoots them both repeatedly. He becomes a ‘hero' for this, then all of the publicity attracts some ominous mob guys who come looking for him, saying that he's someone else, a professional killer named Joey that they've spent nearly 20 years looking for, and when Viggo insists that he isn't this Joey, his life gets progressively worse as they threat his family. I've known this part of the plot for months, but that's my fault for paying too much attention to the press on this film (though who here hadn't seen the trailer? I guess I'm the only one this negatively effected). It isn't an uninteresting set-up, but I wasn't get much more from this part of the film than I did from the trailer. Anyway, in the meantime, Cronenberg is giving us all of these obviously intentional small town America clichés, and then lightly juxtaposing our hero's problems with his son, a cynic who is being picked on by a bully, and in the midst of Mortenson's character worrying about the men who think he's someone else, we are treated to a bully showdown straight out of "Spider Man" (it's always nice to see an asshole get beat up, but do we really need it in another film?). Okay, so now there are parallels between the two, and questions are raised about the meaning of killing/defense (like if it's a murderer or a thief that you're killing, then its okay to kill them and you're a hero, but if you kill somebody who isn't publicly menacing, it's looked gravely down upon, and I guess the film is saying that it doesn't matter which one you choose, they're both the same, but isn't that just kind of obvious?). And then finally, Mortenson murdering two of the three men and his son finishing off Ed Harris is the turning point that I was waiting for (and it is also here that Cronenberg finally puts away the obviously intentional clichés), and it does get more interesting and involving after this, but the final confrontation with William Hurt is disappointing and really kind of predictable (the most obvious thing that would've happened was that Viggo simply would've killed them, and that's exactly what happens so I guess I was expecting something more, he does cleanse himself afterwards in an almost Malick-ian scene, but for some reason, that didn't surprise me either, in fact, it reminded me of a scene from another film, though I'm not sure what film). With that said, the silent ending is one of the best scenes in Cronenberg's entire career, and Viggo Mortenson is very good, but the story just doesn't add up to much. The bottom line is that nothing in this film surprised me, it all seemed pretty obvious, and actually, quite a bit of it reminded me of other things, such as "Unbreakable." Ending this, I must admit that out of the eight Cronenberg's I've seen, "Dead Ringers" is still the only film of his I actively like, and while “A History of Violenceâ€

[Polybius]

After watching both the Letterman and Stewart interviews it seems clear that Viggo isn't the most engaging subject to interview.

Yeah, he's got that much in common with that "different famous liberal" mentioned previously.

Both ends of the artisitic spectrum, folks.

Cruel, but funny and undeniable.

It's a little early to be thinking in these terms, but...interesting tidbit from DavisDVD:

A History of Violence

Driving to school this past Monday, I had the chance to hear director David Cronenberg interviewed on XM Satellite Radio's "Reel Time Weekly" (Cinemagic: XM 27). Cronenberg talked about his latest film A History of Violence, his previous projects and collaborations with Academy Award-winning composer Howard Shore. One of the few directors who routinely steers clear of showing deleted scenes, Cronenberg revealed that a couple of cut sequences will make their way onto the "Violence" DVD in finished form. He said that he actually took time in post-production to fine cut, color-time and track music onto the scenes just for the DVD.

[Andre Jurieu]

I've already written way too much on the film anyway, but I'll defend it a little. First off I never judge a film by how much was revealed in the trailer. It's part of the problem with judging films purely on the experience of watching a film, because if you've seen something from a trailer it "ruins" a bunch of stuff. Whether or not something is ruined by a trailer doesn't change the film itself, so why judge the film on what plot details you already know.

Second, Cronenberg is not actually interested in exploring "new" territory here, or saying something "new" about violence. What he is interested in doing is presenting different perspectives on violence and seeing how they play out against each other. A great deal of the film is self-aware, in that it knows it's sludging through cliches, but it also wants to play with our reactions to violence. The bully element is a cliche, but it's one that is used to toy with the audience reaction to violence. First off, most people will feel a satisfaction when the son extracts his revenge on the bully. Cronenberg isn't saying its wrong to react this way, but right after the scene he undercuts the cheers by having the son be smacked down by his father, and all of a sudden those cheers turn to gasps. Jack's actions also display the fact that his physical reactions are genetic to some degree, since his ruthless ability mimics Tom's. The difference is in their emotional reactions to their physical abilities, since both are ashamed and embarrassed. Jack is actually resentful of Tom's genetics because he has since then lived his life under the facade of being a intelligent pacifist, and its difficult for him to accept that his physical abilities can also bring him emotional satisfaction. They're both just too good at killing, but neither wants to be, and they thus must cloak themselves in a more mundane morality.

The violence within the film is allowed to give brief satisfaction, but ultimately, once reflected upon, never sustains itself. However, Cronenberg isn't dismissing that initial satisfaction either. It's not delivering a new message, but it embraces both sides of the coin to some degree. It's delivering an old idea in a different method. Tom returns home after dispatching his enemy, but was it necessary for him to vanquish his final enemy? Was he actually protecting his family or himself? His final battle wasn't the triumph that the western hero is usually allowed, but a defeat of a bunch of incompetent criminals. The film holds fast to the cliches of its genre but also constantly undermines the scenes in which those cliches appear.

Of course, given the current global climate, some are also reading this as a political allegory. I can see that to some extent, but it becomes cloudy. Of course, cloudy is just what Cronenberg wants this one to be.

BTW, I expect a great many more disappointed reaction from the board on this one. This one will be seen by many as pedestrian.

[Dylan]

Sevenarts, I'm pretty sure I liked it a little more than you did (even right after I saw the film).

and we get the totally obvious and ridiculous subplot with the bully (who else saw the son's eventual outburst coming from within the first 10 minutes of the film?).

I think I was a little too hard on this part in the film, because I actually didn't think it was ridiculous, and I got that he was using this cliché as more of an illustration and contrast, but it did baffle me as to why it had to be so obvious. I'm still not sure how necessary it was to have this element be a school bully, but, as Andrei said, the bully is there for us to want to see get the crap kicked out of. But what Cronenberg really wants is the next scene with the father and the son, burning the ‘victory,' which sums up the film's intentions for everyone I've spoken to about it. It's all part of our perception of hero and violence (i.e., violence against something that is obviously a menace is often looked at as heroic, but violence is looked considerably down upon for just about every other circumstance).

and, while awkward acting is pretty much de rigeur for cronenberg, i thought everybody except ed harris & viggo mortensen was absolutely, distractingly bad in this.

Even though I'm not a fan, one of the things I generally like about Cronenberg's films is the acting. I thought Chris Walken and Jeff Goldblum were very good in their respective roles in “Dead Zoneâ€

[Andre Jurieu]

The person I discussed this with also commented on how the clichés gave the film a surrealistic quality, but then again, all small town America cliches are surreal in one way or another.

The weird thing with this one is that it's not the town that's put under scrutiny, it's the outsider Tom who so desperately wants to co-exist with the town. The town actually continues to function as normal, even after Tom is exposed, because it isn't the one with another identity that it's trying to ignore.

After films like Blue Velvet (and the more banal American Beauty), there have been a tonne of movies dedicated to exploring the lurid dark-side of suburbia that is hidden by some facade of normalcy. Cronenberg is not interested in this so much since it would just be redundant at this point. Instead his film explores the dilemma of one man and how it effects his nuclear family. Millbrook, Indiana is definitely one gigantic cliche and Cronenberg sort of points out its contrived quality through displaying the excess to which it's embraced all these Americana cliches. However, instead of just claiming the American small-town ideal is a cliche, Cronenberg seems more interested in using it as a misguided ideal for Tom. Tom truly needs to be able to adopt the character of a small-town man of simple morals and peaceful existence, and he hopes he can continually meet this ideal. Unfortunately, Cronenberg points out its an unrealistic goal for a man whose body wants him to be something different.

[rs98762001]

I have to say I thought it was fantastic. It's a simple story, told very economically, but as demonstrated in this thread and in much of the media coverage, Cronenberg has done an amazing job of allowing the audience to fill in the blanks for themselves - politically, morally, and otherwise. Not since UNFORGIVEN has there been a film about violence that is so ambiguous. Bloody justice is deservedly served to many of the film's despicable characters, and Cronenberg indeed revels in some of the action set pieces. Yet the effect of the violence in the film emotionally devastates Tom and his family. It's not a novel idea necessarily - but it felt very applicable to our society today, where almost every person to some degree is affected by our inherently violent nature. For Tom to escape his violent past is not enough - it follows him wherever he goes, and it's only a matter of time before it catches up with him.

By the way, did anyone else think that opening scenes with the hitmen was meant to be a riff on Hemingway's THE KILLERS?

[Cinesimilitude]

I wanted to see this so bad last night, but my geek friends dragged me to Serenity. which was fun, but nye on intellectual stimulation.

[BWilson]

I too thought of The Killers, at least the Siodmak film version, because the hit men seem to be THE force of evil in both films, but in fact it turns out they only hasten all the action that follows.

But, what was with William Hurt's performance? It was so over the top, I got the feeling he was mimicking someone. Some pushy Hollywood producer or someone. Any guesses?

[blindside8zao]

I'm a pretty big C-berg fan and didn't feel that the film had much to offer. I believe the themes of the movie were quite underdeveloped and some are even being read in, I think. (Someone in one review said it dealt with oral sex as a loving form of sex? I don't believe 5 seconds of it qualifies as creating a theme.) I would be one of those members someone said would rate the film pedestrian.

Overall it was a good film, but from Cronenberg I wanted more, knowing his capabilities.

[Andre Jurieu]

Someone in one review said it dealt with oral sex as a loving form of sex?

Did they mean that oral sex is a theme, or that displaying oral sex on-screen is a method by which Cronenberg expands upon his theme?

Either way, it's not just oral sex, it's the 69 position, which isn't really a common display in your average film. Having the couple engage in the act of mutual gratification with their limbs entangled at the beginning of the film conveys a sense of equilibrium between the couple that sure isn't present in the second sex scene. In fact that second sex scene has more to do with a predatory scuffle for dominance with a great deal of aggression towards each other. There is no longer equality - its been reduced to a battle for control.

[justeleblanc]

Someone in one review said it dealt with oral sex as a loving form of sex?

Did they mean that oral sex is a theme, or that displaying oral sex on-screen is a method by which Cronenberg expands upon his theme?

Either way, it's not just oral sex, it's the 69 position, which isn't really a common display in your average film. Having the couple engage in the act of mutual gratification with their limbs entangled at the beginning of the film conveys a sense of equilibrium between the couple that sure isn't present in the second sex scene. In fact that second sex scene has more to do with a predatory scuffle for dominance with a great deal of aggression towards each other. There is no longer equality - its been reduced to a battle for control.

So? That's hardly a deep or strong punch.

I saw this film last night and I agree with those who wanted more from Cronenberg. I personally wanted more emotional pull. I wanted his relationship with his son to be stronger and less superficial, I wanted his relationship with his brother to be a bit less simple. The concept of erasing your past and being born again is a fairly Cronenbergian concept, only without surgery or disease, Tom has to manually erase his past with a gun. However, the emotion just wasn't there. I wanted a scene similar to when Ginsberg & Kerouac find Burroughs with empty bottles in NAKED LUNCH, or when Christopher Walken yells "The ice is gonna break!" in DEAD ZONE. It was a well crafted film, but maybe I just disagreed with the direction.

[Andre Jurieu]

So? That's hardly a deep or strong punch.

I never said it was. I'm saying there is a point to the oral sex scene and it isn't just some superficial detail. It has a specific reason for being included and shown, however briefly. It's another manifestation of the facade that Tom is living under at the beginning of the film.

I personally wanted more emotional pull... However, the emotion just wasn't there.

I have my doubts that emotional pull was what Cronenberg was after in this one. This one functions as more of a clinical examination. Besides, the expression on Mortensen's face when Tom shoots his son that stare after Jack has become initiated was all the emotion required for me.

[che-etienne]

I agree with Justeleblanc. For me, the performances as well as the direction was sorely undercooked here. Cronenberg seemed more interested in the overall sweep of this film, its narrative and its themes, rather than the characters. It severely detracted from the film's power. Also, I take issue with Howard Shore's score, which started to lose its way during the second half of the film. The music in the final scene especially bothered me, and detracted from what otherwise was a well-conceived ending. I did like Viggo in this film. I thought he was very good, even if his character was underwritten.

[Matt]

Haven't Cronenberg's characters always been, for the most part, ciphers that function as cogs in the thematic machinery? I mean to say that his characters don't really exercise free will. They are more often in some sort of free fall from a state of grace to a state of moral and existential misery. Cronenberg is kind of Bresson in reverse.

And while I'm on the soapbox, what are you people doing looking for "emotional pull" in a Cronenberg movie? You might as well be looking for pratfalls in a Dreyer movie.