1283 A History of Violence

[zedz]

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.

Come on, don't tell me your drink doesn't go up your nose when she gets her dress caught in the coffin at the end of Ordet.

[Andre Jurieu]

Cronenberg is kind of Bresson in reverse.

Man, that is so messed up! I had the same thought while writing about the film, but didn't bother to mention it.

[Napoleon]

Although I am astonished at how many people have misunderstood this movie, do these misunderstandings also mean that Cronenberg has to a large extent failed with this?
After all it was created for a more mainstream audience, and the fact that so many people have not connected with it cannot be seen as a good thing.
Perhaps he should have employed inter-titles to explain exactly what is happening at ten minute intervals.

[Napoleon]

No doubt in my mind that he was aiming for some sort of audience with this. I even have some asinine arguments to back this up.

a) The plot in its abstract form is straightforward and contains nothing even mildly confusing.
b) It has an A(-) list star for the first time since, well forever, unless you count Walken in the Dead Zone. It also has a couple of heavyweight support actors who are very familiar to a mainstream audience.
c) No nasty mutations on show at all (I know the settings should prevent it, but it didn't stop him with the jellied eel in Spider did it?).
d) The clincher. Cronenberg not only promoted this heavily, but was all smiles and joking around whilst doing so.

I think it's a shame that, for whatever reason, more people have not connected with this. I think it has a lot to say about violence and the human condition.

[Andre Jurieu]

Although I am astonished at how many people have misunderstood this movie, do these misunderstandings also mean that Cronenberg has to a large extent failed with this?

I don't know if they are completely misunderstanding it. On its surface it is a straight-forward little revenge pic, and I'm thinking Cronenberg knows some viewers will only see it as such. What's problematic for the viewer is in seeing the other levels of subversion and reconciling which interpretation is correct. I'm convinced Cronenberg doesn't intend this film to be read as a simple message for or against violence. It's not a celebration or a condemnation. Like everything Cronenberg it explores what our body requires and our mind convinces us we need and the reconciliation between the two is messy.

After all it was created for a more mainstream audience, and the fact that so many people have not connected with it cannot be seen as a good thing.

I'm thinking Cronenberg understands the audience will not connect with his film like they do with something like A Beautiful Mind, or Good Will Hunting, or some other Hollywood Oscar dish. It's his most mainstream movie, but that doesn't make it a standard mainstream movie - at least not in my mind.

c) No nasty mutations on show at all

Yeah, but there are some pretty grisly shots of faces that have been mutilated.

[Napoleon]

What's problematic for the viewer is in seeing the other levels of subversion and reconciling which interpretation is correct.

Yes, I think that when characters and themes are painted in shades of grey (as opposed to simple black and white), some viewers seem to develop a real problem towards them. I'm sure there are other contributing factors, but this is likely a major reason why DC has only occasionally (and even then unintentionally) managed to cross over into the mainstream.

I don't know if they are completely misunderstanding it.

Although they are able to follow the basic plot, I still think that much of what the film was saying was lost. I'm not sure that this constitutes a misunderstanding, but then again I'm not terribly articulate, so it is pot luck whether any of my comments make any sense anyhow.

A final point that I would like to raise is that in general this appears to have polarized audiences. Its either love or hate, indicating that either people are angry because they sense that they are not 'getting' it or that viewed as a simple revenge fable it sucks.
I believe that if this latter point is true, then it is here that Cronenberg has failed.

But I won't hold it against him.

[Andre Jurieu]

... in general this appears to have polarized audiences. Its either love or hate, indicating that either people are angry because ... viewed as a simple revenge fable it sucks.
I believe that if this latter point is true, then it is here that Cronenberg has failed.

But there in lies one of the levels of subversion. As a straight revenge fable it doesn't satisfy upon its conclusion (partially because our hero does not receive his typical celebratory parade), even though it mimics the genre so well. Of course, this perception does require somewhat of a leap of faith in Cronenberg's strategy. It also requires the viewer to look past his/her own experience and examine the intensions of the filmmaker, which - you seem to imply and I agree - rarely happens for a mainstream audience who want a simple message and standard plot points. They have to ask themselves why it "sucks" and, like you, I have my doubts this question is asked very often. If he did tell a straight revenge saga and delivered everything the audience needed and asked for, it would be hard to justify any level of subversion had occurred. It's a dilemma of artist versus audience - if Cronenberg is going to create something that appears to pander to an audience, and then subvert expectations, he also has to weather the criticism that he did not deliver the required product. Of course, I don't think he really cares if people complain they didn't receive their bloody-satisfaction in the manner they wanted.

[blindside8zao]

Andre, within the context of pushing the oral sex into social acceptance within a larger body of work, and not working with it as a theme for the film , then of course it makes sense. It can't not have the effect considering it is a virtually unused position for typical R-rated Hollywood flicks.

I do not believe that I'm missing any of the themes of the film, I just don't think they are presented in a sophisticated fashion. They are pretty much plainly stated.

If this movie garners more support for Cronenberg then personally I could care less if it sucked or not, as long as he takes that money and puts it into a worthwhile effort, I am all for raising the bucks. Hollywood uses us, why not use them?

[Andre Jurieu]

Andre, within the context of pushing the oral sex into social acceptance within a larger body of work, and not working with it as a theme for the film , then of course it makes sense. It can't not have the effect considering it is a virtually unused position for typical R-rated Hollywood flicks.

Ok, I'm not disagreeing with that, but that's not really what I'm saying either. I agree that part of what Cronenberg is doing is pushing a specific physical display of a sexual relationship into a more socially acceptable realm, but I'm doubting that this is his sole intention when he chooses to exhibit such a scene.

When Tom and Edie are in that particular sexual position, it appears strange, almost alien, because - yes - we don't see that position very often within mainstream cinema. However, the other characteristic about the image, as composed by Cronenberg, is that it entangles their bodies, as if they were consuming one another (I guess, in a way, they are). Thus the image is symmetrical and the action complimentary, suggesting an equality, but underneath it there is also an aggressive aspect to the image as well. Now the aggression of the image is not overt, and it is reciprocal, just as the gratification is reciprocal. In displaying such an image, Cronenberg is composing yet another representation of the idyllic life that Tom is hiding beneath. This is love/sex on equal terms, but it is, as shown by the 2nd sex-scene, a facade that both he and Edie are living under, since it's clear their bodies also require domination and overt aggression. It's kind of another example of the idea that "all cinematic sex is an act of violence".

So while the 69-position and/or oral sex is not a theme by itself, it does help Cronenberg convey some of his other themes. That's kind of what my original point was.

I do not believe that I'm missing any of the themes of the film, I just don't think they are presented in a sophisticated fashion. They are pretty much plainly stated.

I don't think you are missing any of the themes of the film and I don't believe I said that in my earlier posts. Cronenberg is fairly plain in his presentation, but as N.W. stated, there are a great deal of grey shades to within his presentation. Those shades might be obvious, but it's an accomplishment to use them all at once. Again, I'm not saying he's presenting anything new, but there are many distortions and contradictions in what he is saying that show themselves in his actors' expressions and his images. Also, to me, this isn't an extremely serious film with a very serious message that we should all ponder endlessly - it's merely an arrangement of different perspectives that Cronenberg somehow weaves into a fascinating film - and it's hilarious in its mannerisms and artificial expressions.

[blindside8zao]

Hey, when you read my first reply, you asked if I had read that he was doing it as a theme within the film, or as a theme through all his works in entirety. Was just answering that. I understood your post the first time and also thought it was inciteful and had not thought of it that way myself.

And as for missing themes, sorry I was replying to someone else's post.

[Andre Jurieu]

... you asked if I had read that he was doing it as a theme within the film, or as a theme through all his works in entirety.

Well, I actually wasn't really interested in determining whether or not it is a theme throughout his body of work. You made mention that a critic said that the Cronenberg's display of oral sex was to convey that oral sex was a loving form of sex, and you then said that a mere 5 second display does not constitute a theme. My original question was asking whether the reviewer actually meant that oral sex's loving nature is a theme within the movie, or whether the reviewer meant Cronenberg was using the display of oral sex as one example to expand upon a greater theme within the movie.

The whole issue with themes in Cronenberg's body of work is kind of separate. I was just wondering about what the reviewer had said, because I didn't know which review you had read, and was wondering if the reviewer actually meant that oral sex was a theme within the movie (which, as you said and I agree, would be a weak assumption to make considering it's only shown briefly). I was just asking for clarification of the reviewer's comments. Sorry about all the confusion.

[flyonthewall2983]

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

I haven't seen the film above mentioned, but did anybody see a sort of link between the scene in the motel office in the beginning and the famous scene in Once Upon A Time In The West when Frank (Henry Fonda) first appears? It could be a bit reaching, but it stuck out a bit when I saw it yesterday.

[Andre Jurieu]

For all you lucky New Yorkers:

AN EVENING WITH DAVID CRONENBERG AND THE CAST OF HISTORY OF VIOLENCE
Wed Nov 9, 8:00 pm
http://www.filmlinc.com/special/events/cronenberg.htm

A limited number of tickets have become available for sale online to this special event!

To buy tickets online visit:
https://tickets.filmlinc.com/php/calend ... &year=2005

This special screening of A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE will be followed by a conversation with David Cronenberg, Viggo Mortensen, Maria Bello, and William Hurt.

There will also be a standby line on the evening of the event if you are unable to get tickets online.

[Steven H]

Spoilers all over the place.

I really enjoyed this, and think it sits perfectly well near the top of Cronenberg's films. First of all, I can't think of *any* strong emotional connections I've made to his films. Deborah Harry isn't exactly "histrionic" in videodrome, I don't recall Peter Weller crying over a lost lover in Naked Lunch, and Fiennes insanity seems part of his everyday life in Spider, rather than being mined for heartstrings. If anything, History of Violence does more to develop the main characters, Tom and Edie, the Stall family in general, than I'm used to in his films. It's practically a Hugo novel in comparison with Crimes of the Future.

Another thing that jumps out at me is Cronenberg's well noted love affair with all things "transformation" related. It's all over the place in this film. Tom's transformation from gangster to midwestern house-husband, his son's transformation from the bullied to killer, his family's transformation from innocent to guilty, and of course the physical transformation that violence inflicts upon the human body (his most visually disturbing film in over a decade). I can't think of a better reason for what attracted Cronenberg to this story to begin with than these changes.

[flambeur]

This played like a late night TV movie of the week for me. Characters were bland and predictable, but I must say William Hurt's gig in this was worth the price of admission alone. I can remember seeing practically every Hurt movie in the 80's when he was an "A" list actor and liking many of them, so this was kinda nostalgic for me.

[Andre Jurieu]

Here's another shot for any New Yorkers

DAVID CRONENBERG DIRECTOR'S DIALOGUE
Tuesday, November 29, 8:00 pm
http://www.filmlinc.com/special/events/ ... alogue.htm

We know that many of you missed out on our first David Cronenberg event, so we've invited him back, this time to speak one-on-one with a special guest interviewer (TBA) about the themes and ideas that have shaped his career and his unique cinematic vision, from THEY CAME FROM WITHIN to A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE.

Tickets: $20 general public ($17 students, $15 Film Society members)

Buy tickets online at:
https://tickets.filmlinc.com/php/calend ... &year=2005

[Gordon]

I still don't understand the accolades for the film. I greatly admire Cronenberg and love almost all of his films, but this - for me and me alone - is his worst film, on reflection. It is an interesting story and is told patiently and intelligently, but once Tom Stall goes 'back home' and William Hurt's surely unintentionally hilarious Richie Cusack appears the film started sinking fast and it stopped feeling like a Cronenberg film. The whole tone of the film is at odds with itself; is it supposed to be emulating the graphic novel style? Or is trying for pure 'reality'? Ed Harris' Carl Fogarty is simply a cookie-cutter villain who you wish would just fuck off - I didn't find any of the villains in the film scary or intimidating, save Stephen McHattie terrifying Leland Jones whose comeuppence is truly horrific. The bullying-retaliation scenes at the school were so by-the-numbers - we've seen that scene way too many times in the movies, but you'd expect Cronenberg to do something different with that situation, but it is clunkily inserted into the narrative simply to parallel the main story and theme of the film. Maybe this works well in the graphic novel, but not in a motion picture adaptation.

However, with that said, I would like to hear what Cronenberg has to say in his commentary as he never disaappoints when sharing his thoughts on disc.

I'm looking forward to I Kill and London Fields, but bring on Painkillers, soon, please!

[Andre Jurieu]

... but once Tom Stall goes 'back home' and William Hurt's surely unintentionally hilarious Richie Cusack appears the film started sinking fast and it stopped feeling like a Cronenberg film.

That whole scene, including Hurt's turn as Richie Cusack, is supposed to be hilarious. It robs our "hero" of the catharsis that every other film using a revenge set-up allows. It's not a skillful display of our "hero's" abilities so much as a comedy of errors. The "hero" isn't allowed to be more capable and superior to his "enemies", but instead is successful due to their complete incompetence. If you think about it, there is really no need for Tom to return to Philly and create this final blood-bath.

The whole tone of the film is at odds with itself;

Mostly because the film is aware of its conventional narrative and seeks to undermine the regular stance these types of films take.

is it supposed to be emulating the graphic novel style?

I would say it is not. The graphic novel is about as simple as revenge stories get and does not play with very many notions regarding revenge and violence. The graphic novel simply is violent to serve it's own purposes, and regularly seeks to justify Tom/Joey's actions by giving him back-story and providing motivation. Cronenberg purposely keeps these aspects vague and thus weakens his "hero" on purpose.

Or is trying for pure 'reality'?

I would again say it is not. It's a movie that understands the presentation of violence and revenge in other movies. It's aim is at our perceptions of "reality" as presented by movies.

Ed Harris' Carl Fogarty is simply a cookie-cutter villain ... I didn't find any of the villains in the film scary or intimidating...

Yes, very much so. That's the point. This is a cookie-cutter scenario, but the film is aware of convention and yet doesn't seek to deliver a reward to its characters or audience. That they aren't scary or intimidating is so that we continue to question why exactly Tom/Joey is so frightened by them, especially since he is a killing-machine, and they don't really appear to pose any significant threat to him. Thus, the only reason becomes the fact that they will reveal his disguise and harm the "cookie-cutter reality" that Tom decides to exist within.

The bullying-retaliation scenes at the school were so by-the-numbers - we've seen that scene way too many times in the movies, but you'd expect Cronenberg to do something different with that situation, but it is clunkily inserted into the narrative simply to parallel the main story and theme of the film. Maybe this works well in the graphic novel, but not in a motion picture adaptation.

First off, this parallel story is not in the graphic-novel. Second, the parallel is interesting because of the suppression that the son uses to delude himself into thinking he is a enlightened pacifist who is above the use of violence, when in fact, genetically, he might just be a better killing machine than his father. His protests against his father's concealment of the truth may have less to do with his father's actions, and more to do with Jack not wanting to accept the fact that he is just as good at killing as his father, since it's in his blood and Jack has spent his entire life trying to build this persona as the weak geek who is so much more intelligent than his high-school companions. Now he has to deal with the fact he might have been a belligerent jock the entire time (remember that he catches the fly-ball which sets off the chain of events). It also might have more to do with Jack thinking he is the rightful authority within the family since he is the one that actually took the action to protect the family.

But the inherent problem of the film is that it chooses to undermine the conventional revenge flick by emulating it to excess. Here are the best quotes I've heard about it (from the Village Voice Take 7 Poll) both for and against the film's subversion:

The movie that best captured our conflict over the moral imperatives of violence was—duh—A History of Violence. It essentially frames our national debate: As a citizen of the world, are we Tom Stall or Crazy Joey Cusack—and does it matter as long as we kill the right people?

David Cronenberg's A History of Violence does for the thriller what Todd Haynes's Far From Heaven did for the melodrama, placing everything in quotation marks while still taking the characters' dilemmas seriously.

A History of Violence was often described as booby-trapped. But after three increasingly disillusioning viewings, I can see that its most amazing booby trap is that there's less great movie there than I thought. It's so successful as a straight genre piece you almost have to squint to see the subversion.

Viggo Mortensen's Tom/Joey fissure is the most baffling, thrilling, unexpected, essay-spawning character transformation since Naomi Watts split the Betty/Diane atom in Mulholland Drive. Both films are movies imitating "movies," and could only be populated by characters playing "characters."

[Fletch F. Fletch]

GreenCine has an excellent, in-depth interview with Cronenberg:

http://www.greencine.com/article?action ... pageID=518

[hearthesilence]

I'm not that familiar with Cronenberg, I've only seen Dead Ringers, The Fly, Dead Zone, and his cameo in To Die For (that was him as the mobster, right?), but I really dug this movie.

I had low expectations when I first heard about it. A 'cheap' movie based on an old graphic novel by the creator of Judge Dredd...the last picture I saw based on a graphic novel was Road To Perdition, and that was really disappointing.

But I totally liked this, 'flaws' and all. In so many ways, this could've been a cheap, cheesy Showtime movie, and I didn't feel a whole lot of love for the original script. Watch the DVD supplements, Maria Bello was dismissive of her role when she first read it, Cronenberg didn't sound floored on his initial reading, and Harris said if Cronenberg wasn't involved, he probably would not have done this picture. However, on a second reading, Bello thought there was more to her character, and Cronenberg saw something there too, right under the surface, and I get the feeling they preserved the same B-movie they read while pulling up all the subversive stuff they saw underneath.

Don't get me wrong, this is a clichéd story. The writer said it was a 'twist' on the 'wrong man' theme you see in Hitchcock, but c'mon, this story's been done plenty of times, going back to The Killers, maybe even further back. A person living an ordinary life (often in a small town) turns out to be a darker personality with a dark past, etc.

There's plenty of cheese, like with the bully, and whenever Hollywood produces an adaptation that throws in two additional sex scenes, it reeks of cheap, crass exploitation. It could've been all that, but what I really like about this picture is that everything is a bit off. From the very start, when you see Tom and his kid talking in the kitchen, there's something off, where everything's a bit distorted (great touch), but only to a subtle degree.

Taken by itself, the first sex scene is a bit cornball, with the whole cheerleader bit, but in the context of the whole movie, it fits perfectly, moreso with the second. The role-playing, trying to embrace what's considered normal or ordinary...and on top of that the attraction to violence, and the inability to escape one's capacity for violence, something that's inherent in every character here, it works great. To have it all contained within a modern-day B-movie (superficially speaking) seems to enrich that.

[Greathinker]

GreenCine has an excellent, in-depth interview with Cronenberg:

http://www.greencine.com/article?action ... pageID=518

Always insightful stuff from cronenberg, I read whatever I can from him. Thanks for the link

[scalesojustice]

...i was going to say, i think a history of violence (as well as the fly) fits the auteur bill. Cronenberg's storytelling tendencies are glaringly obvious. There is no question when watching either films as to who the author is, despite not having a screenplay credit.

i might even argue that a history of violence is Cronenberg's most successful work to date, not only monetarily, but artistically as well. he managed to cram in all his usual subtext and questions (the push and pull of sex and violence) but wrap it in a digestible mainstream package. it's especially impressive when i hear housewives at work talking about how they just watch a history of violence. granted they didn't like it, but they saw it, and are better for it.

[Gropius]

i might even argue that a history of violence is Cronenberg's most successful work to date, not only monetarily, but artistically as well. he managed to cram in all his usual subtext and questions (the push and pull of sex and violence) but wrap it in a digestible mainstream package.

Why should the fact that he wrapped it in a 'digestible mainstream package' make it his most successful work? I know there was a lot of enthusiasm for History of Violence, but it's easily my least favourite Cronenberg film (even the shaky M. Butterfly was more interesting). For a crime thriller it's a superior work, but surely there are enough thriller directors as it is?

[exte]

...it's especially impressive when i hear housewives at work talking about how they just watch a history of violence. granted they didn't like it, but they saw it, and are better for it.

Even if they watched it just for Viggo?

[Greathinker]

Why should the fact that he wrapped it in a 'digestible mainstream package' make it his most successful work? I know there was a lot of enthusiasm for History of Violence, but it's easily my least favourite Cronenberg film (even the shaky M. Butterfly was more interesting). For a crime thriller it's a superior work, but surely there are enough thriller directors as it is?

A History of Violence is one of my favorite of Cronenberg's and I tend to think that those of his following that don't like it are that way because it doesn't deal with the kind of esoteric topics/themes he's known for, and instead tackles that broad topic of violence-- it's ironic to me that people call it a mainstream film when there are so very few that make an attempt to question violence at this scope, particularly on-screen violence, let alone do it effectively. I think it's a true work from him; he's talked about how he was influenced by the Iraq war and so on-- it's a perfectly timely and relevant film that uses it's thriller or gangster genre as a means of inviting in a larger audience to take a look at what he's doing. It never occurred to me that he was actually making a gangster film, that all seems superficial, especially with the lack of narrative action, it's clearly a sort of treatise on violence, the kind that needs to be made and would be fall to pieces in the hands of other directors.