The first scrobble for this title is still propagating, but a community review is already indexed below.
Reviews
Longform community posts about this title
Film Review: A History of Violence (2005)@drax716d
David Cronenberg's crime drama A History of Violence surprised many in 2005. The reason for this was not the quantity and nature of the explicit violence and similar "problematic" content in the film, but rather the fact that many saw this film as "conventional", i.e. much closer to Hollywood's mainstream than some kind of "artsy" content that was supposed to break the boundaries of film expression. It is precisely thanks to this "conventionality" that A History of Violence went relatively unnoticed, and caused less of a stir than the more hyped, although inferior "serious" films of its time, such as Brokeback Mountain and Crash.
The plot, based on the 1997 graphic novel by John Wagner and Vince Locke, is set in the small town of Millbrook, Indiana, where the quiet diner owner Tom Stall (played by Viggo Mortensen), the protagonist, lives. His life embodies all the ideals of the American middle class - he has an attractive wife Edie (played by Maria Bello) and an adorable 5-year-old daughter Sarah (played by Heidi Hayes), while his teenage son Jack (played by Ashton Holmes) is the star of the school baseball team and the family pride. However, this idyll will be brutally interrupted by two wandering psychopaths who burst into his diner with intention to rob, torture and kill everyone present. To their great surprise, Tom proves more than capable of dealing with situation, killing both of them. He suddenly becomes a local hero, his face appears on TV screens, but the quiet diner owner wants nothing more than to continue his ordinary life. However, the sudden discovery of his proficiency in killing starts to change his relationship with his wife and children, who begin to look at him in a completely different light. To make matters worse, a gangster named Fogarty (played by Ed Harris) suddenly starts lurking around Millbrook, claiming he knew Tom by another name.
David Cronenberg built his reputation with films set in ultra-modern, "cool", highly stylized and seemingly perfect worlds beneath whose facade lay the imperfections of characters that manifested themselves through catastrophic consequences. The middle class idyll described in Josh Olson's Oscar-nominated screenplay may not be visually similar, but is very much alike Cronenberg's false utopias.
Although the film can formally be placed within the conventional Hitchcockian framework of stories about ordinary people in unusual situations, or can be understood as an ode to traditional family values, for Cronenberg it represented another, and excellently exploited, opportunity to explore the true essence of human nature, i.e. how thin the line is that divides the "enlightened" and civilised citizen from the bloodthirsty troglodyte. What is particularly praiseworthy about the film is that it allows the audience to draw its own conclusions, which includes the ambiguous ending.
Cronenberg would not have succeeded in this without a truly excellent cast. Mortensen, at the time best known as Aragorn from The Lord of the Rings, is more than convincing as an ordinary man forced to face some unpleasant truths about himself. Similar thing can be said for Maria Bello, who excellently played a rather controversial, even physically demanding role that many of her hyped colleagues would have given up on. Along with Ed Harris in a rather ominous edition, William Hurt is quite good in one of the most unusual roles of his career must also be singled out.
A History of Violence represents a masterful exploration of the duality of human nature, where the veneer of civilisation can be stripped away to reveal the primal violence lurking beneath. Cronenberg's assured direction and the superb performances from the cast make this one of the most compelling and thought-provoking films of the 2000s.
›History of Violence or a History with Violence?: David Cronenberg Answers@amirtheawesome11066d
During the honoring of the Canadian director, David Cronenberg, at the Venice Film Festival, where he received the Golden Lion for his lifetime achievements, the award presenter was the Mexican Oscar-winning director, Guillermo del Toro, director of the film 'The Shape of Water.' Upon presenting the award, Guillermo del Toro said:
David Cronenberg's films do not belong to a specific genre, but they are a genre in and of themselves.
The truth is that there is a widely circulated saying:
Without Cronenberg's monsters, we wouldn't have gotten del Toro's monsters.
The Canadian director is renowned for films that are mistakenly classified as visceral horror, such as "The Fly" and "Videodrome." These films possess strength in their ability to be interpreted against the backdrop of human evolution. They suggest that human development leaves behind a primitive, animalistic part within, which civilization tries to suppress in a sick and criminal manner. The director then transitions between various stages, which can be classified according to their impact. Films like "Naked Lunch," "Cosmopolis," and "Existenz" demonstrate a clear Kafkaesque or sensual and Freudian influence. Movies like "Spider" and "Crash" also contain strong Freudian and sensual elements.
However, the most popular and successful phase for the director was his involvement with gangster films, a genre that seemed odd for him. On one hand, he immersed himself in a genre that had been thoroughly consumed, and on the other hand, why, at this point in his career, did he want to address a larger audience?
The answer was: How can you tell a simple, clear story that is layered and can be interpreted in multiple ways?
This phase included "Eastern Promises" and "A History of Violence," with the latter being the focus of our discussion today.
The Beginning
When the scenario was initially presented to the actor (Viggo Mortensen), he rejected it, seeing it as a typical story. The first version of the scenario was about Italian gangs, which he found to be too cliché for his taste. However, he became very interested when (David Cronenberg) agreed to take on the scenario with complete freedom to work outside the studio. Little did he know that the scenario was originally based on a comic, and Cronenberg dealt only with the material he had. The first change was switching the Italian gangs to Irish ones, which he thought was suitable for the chosen protagonists. The second modification was deciding to shoot the entire film in Canada. Surprisingly, he had never filmed any movie in America except for "Maps to the Stars," a film that was almost shot in an unauthorized way to criticize Hollywood mechanisms themselves. As for the third modification, it will be mentioned elsewhere.
Title: Post-Anti-Climax Era
The film follows the character of Tom Stall, a married man in his forties with a teenage son and a daughter. He owns and manages a restaurant, while his wife is a lawyer. Their life is peaceful, with no major problems, just the usual challenges, like their son facing the struggles of asserting himself in school, which at that age becomes a battleground for hormonal expression. Tom is against this kind of behavior, knowing its consequences. Besides this, life is calm, except for the nightmares that haunt him at night, nightmares of a violent, bloody, and barbaric life.
One day, his restaurant is attacked by roaming gangsters, seeking only to rob him. Tom defends himself and kills them, but he does it skillfully and brutally. The American media celebrates this event, publishing his picture all over the outlets. However, his celebration is short-lived as he finds himself once again trapped by Irish gangsters from Philadelphia, claiming he is someone named Joey Cusack, a violent gangster they have personal revenge against. What follows is similar to what happened in the restaurant. Tom defends himself, killing them, but this time, his son participates in the killing. All of this happens in front of his wife, who realizes at this moment that she has lived her entire life with a person she didn't know, and, more importantly, a ruthless and bloody killer.
After this, Tom-Joey is forced to take a journey into the past to meet his brother, who used to work for him, to put an end to everything. It is a legendary nighttime journey to a creepy mansion hidden in the jungle, where his brother resides.
As we can see, the film is set in a post-fulfillment, post-retirement time, much like the theme of "Carlito's Way" by Brian De Palma. The hero had his adventures and killed his enemies, and now he just wants to live as an ordinary person, with a loving wife and a warm family.
The third intervention in the screenplay by Cronenberg was to add two sex scenes between the protagonist and his wife, one before she knows his true identity and another after. His perspective was about how the body expresses knowledge, how it physically conveys something emotional. Unfortunately, the second scene was misunderstood by many and considered a rape, which is not true. The second scene involved a violent exchange between the two, and to understand this scene, we must understand violence when it turns into language, like phrases exchanged between them. This scene also had an erotic aspect beyond the apparent one. During sex between partners, they sometimes resort to imaginary acts and role-playing that don't represent them to increase excitement. The truth is that the source of this act is savage and beastly because during it, one partner betrays the other without actually betraying them. When we go back to the first scene between them, where the wife was dressed as a showgirl, we can understand the second scene as a form of role-playing as well. Now, she is engaging with a bloody killer to the extreme. It's extremely thrilling, but she knows it's only suitable for a good lay, impossible to be a life partner.
The Violence (Taboo)
During the violent scenes in the film, Cronenberg insisted on portraying them in a visceral manner. Violence occurs as an explosive outburst, a moment when nerves snap, and individuals do things they never imagined they would. Violence here is depicted through a Freudian lens. In Freud's work on "Totem and Taboo," he discusses how a tribe punishes a murderer by excluding rather than killing them. The offender is isolated in a specific area, and nobody is allowed to approach that space. Here, violence is dealt with as a contagious disease. The killer is not to be touched, nor any of his belongings or anything associated with him.
In René Girard's interpretation of this act in his book "Violence and the Sacred," he mentions that the society must do this because the person is seen as against the social norms. Adopting the profession of a killer is akin to adopting one of the skills of the gods. To reconcile with such an entity, the society must reduce it to a mere inhuman being so that it can continue to exist. Therefore, when committing ritualistic violence in these societies, like offering sacrifices or killing enemies, this act is performed in a celebratory manner, as if the responsibility for the killing is shared collectively by the community rather than attributed to a specific individual. It is considered an act commanded by the divine and not a personal whim. When playing the role of Cain, the god is taking on the role of preserving the social order. This is why it can engage in activities that would otherwise be considered illegal or immoral by the society, as part of an agreement between them.
When Tom is excluded from his family in the film, he finds himself in a dilemma and confusion, with no option but to return to the old world, a dark, primitive, and brutal world. He must decide whether to eliminate this world or be eliminated by it. Tom faces an internal struggle between seeking revenge and embracing his calmer and more balanced side, leading him to a decisive confrontation between darkness and light in his personal journey.
History of Violence, or History from Violence?
When Cronenberg spoke to the famous critic Roger Ebert about explaining the film's title, he said:
It has several levels,
The first level: it refers to a person with a violent criminal history.
The second level: it can be read as 'History of Violence,' signifying the history of using violence as a means to resolve conflicts between nations throughout history.
The third level: it alludes to something in Darwin's theory, about how the more adaptable organisms replace the less adaptable ones, as if there is something primal in the world that echoes violence.
Here we can add a fourth level mentioned in the film, spoken by the protagonist's brother when he said: "Did you think you could live the American Dream and forget your violent history?"
Here, we are referring to a nation built on the bodies of the indigenous people (Native Americans); once again, America consumes itself.
When the protagonist returns to his family in the end after killing his brother and everything related to his past, he hopes to be forgiven by his family. His daughter offers him food as a sign of hope and a fresh start.
But the question remains: Can a person live a normal life in this civilization when they are immersed in the swamp of true self-knowledge?
The violent history here is not an individual history but an evolutionary (Darwinian) history, a psychological history (Freudian), and a history of myth with its violent origins (René Girard).
Can a contemporary human, after knowing all this about themselves, live a natural life?
›'A History of Violence' by David Cronenberg Review: Nothing special, but not bad either@namiks1113d
The other day I watched The Tree of Life, somehow getting it mixed up with this film. After watching that film, I remembered what led to me watching it: Viggo Mortensen, who isn't even in The Tree of Life! Well, having realised this, I decided to give both of them a watch anyway. Enjoying both of them fairly equally. I can't recall if I have ever seen A History of Violence, however. Perhaps a long, long time ago I had. Even now, I sit here thinking it may not have even been the film I had in mind in the first place. Viggo Mortensen is an actor that everyone seems to love purely due to his role in The Lord of the Rings, but not really given much light on any of his other roles. While being born in America but having moved around the world in his youth, some of his works end up with him having a bit of a weird American accent added. I guess, the best way to describe it is when you see an actor that is clearly British speaking in an American accent, it seems almost jarring. This brings the question: have many people actually seen his other films? Don't get me wrong, he is a very good actor. So much so that I suddenly remembered he existed and had to search up some of his titles I may have missed.
This tends to be how I come across films these days. Weird bouts of sudden interest or ideas that lead me down the rabbithole into various libraries of directors and actors that may or may not have had any relevance in years. Viggo Mortensen's library tends to be a bit hit and miss, however. I think the last film of his I had seen and enjoyed was Captain Fantastic, a pretty low budget indie film that was marketed as a comedy but was actually an incredibly depressing story on loss and fatherhood, Mortensen carrying the film with a lead role. His older works, however? Well, I can't seem to remember them much at all. Here comes in A History of Violence. Coming out in 2005 but feeling like a film that was shot on the cheap in the late 90s. Now, I'm not saying it is a bad film at all, but one that does have some weird moments or filmmaking techniques that stood it to me and had me curious as to why this was accepted; mostly coming to the conclusion that this was what was really the norm in the years prior, as if it has been collecting dust for a few decades before being released to the public.
A History of Violence
A History of Violence is the type of film you might expect from the era. At a time in which Hollywood made simple and almost repetitive stories. Though, still creative and entertaining. The film's narrative carries off from the wave of interest in mob films that came about in the 90s. Though featuring a fun perspective on the traditional setup. We follow an everyday family man that works in a diner in a rural state in the United States of America. This man being humble, down to Earth, but ultimately nothing too special. Your average citizen that provides for his family, cares, and earns a paycheck to support them. Much like Fargo, a group of crooks roll into town causing all kinds of trouble along the way, stopping by at the diner only to spread their evil there, attempting to rob the place and threatening to kill the workers. From here we get a glimpse of our protagonist's true nature, as he overwhelms the crooks and kills them, becoming a huge local hero with much media attention. Father figure singlehandedly defending his community against men with guns. As one might expect, this pulls in a ton of attention, leading to the diner becoming very popular, and media roaming around in his personal life.
The humble nature is seen quite soon. He rejects the media attention and just wants to go back to his everyday life as before. It makes sense, it is something some would expect after suffering a difficult ordeal such as taking two lives and now having cameras pointed at your home. But sooner or later it becomes clear that this personality is slowly having the surface scratched at, revealing a deeper set of secrets that he's desperately trying to keep buried. Mortensen, with an American accent, plays a pretty convincing average guy, I liked the way he seems uninterested in the world and wanting to keep his distance from things, even as it becomes clear that he's hiding something from everyone. To counter this character is his son, a weak, bullied teenager at school. Incapable of defending himself, he serves as a fundamental plot point later on. Though this balance helps keep things odd and mysterious: the weak and the vulnerable nature of his son coming from a father that seems weak himself. As if he's shutting people out. Though with the media attention comes dangerous faces, hailing from a different state and being part of the mob. Convinced that our protagonist is someone else, and not who he claims to be.
I liked the way the film toys with this for a while before giving us an answer, though I think I would have preferred if it had remained this way, mysterious and almost full of suspense and tension as our protagonist insists they have the wrong person. It is highly evident they don't, and this is hardly a spoiler, don't worry. But I think I would have referred if the film continued that mystery on, not really telling us whether he is or is not. I found the film started to decline a bit once the truth became clear, especially as the character of the son became a bit more important to the plot. Alongside this little annoyance is the very strange audio in the film, it seems like the dialogue was recorded after the scenes and placed in during post production. It sounds very unnatural. If you know how Foley works, you'll understand what I mean here: sound effects that don't seem authentic, not really in sync with the characters and just a bit distracting. It was the dialogue for the most part that threw me off, but also some sound effects which seems to be mixed oddly. Some sounds seemed far louder than they should be, sometimes drowning out other sounds. Perhaps it was something on my end, but I'm not convinced it was at all.
Though the directing worked pretty well. We get perspectives of Mortensen's character that make him seem much more menacing and dangerous, especially with the composition of the camera looking up at him, giving us the feeling of him towering over us, being a danger. Shot on 35mm film, A History of Violence tends to be a darker looking film, with beautiful lighting tones when it comes to the daylight scenes. Low light or gentle diffused sunlight for the most part. I think I enjoyed the directing the most! But would I recommend it? Well, I don't think it's for everyone. And if you're a fan of Viggo Mortensen but haven't seen his other works, keep in mind how widely different they'll be to his character of Aragorn, that is for sure!
