|
|
May 3rd, 2006 by Cory Mailliard (Permalink)
Director: David Cronenberg Year: 2005 Add Comments |
It’s a lean, mean David Cronenberg we find ourselves faced with these days. With Spider and now A History of Violence he’s chosen to play the part of the polite houseguest. I’d say the mad Canadian is more restrained, but he’s still as dangerous as ever. Instead, he bides his time until, with a quick flick of the wrist, you find yourself bleeding all over the carpet. This time he comes knocking with heaping handfuls of Americana, offering to show us our collective dreams and ideals until he reveals them to be utterly false.
Tom Stall (Viggo Mortensen) lives the rural American dream: a pretty wife (Maria Bello); a smart, sensitive son; a cherubic daughter; a successful small town business; and a nice house on a patch of quiet land. When two violent outsiders (linked to the city and its evils, of course) invade his diner, Tom responds with Old Testament justice that leaves both dead and gets his face plastered on every television set as a True American Hero. His sudden exposure catches the eye of some bad men from Philly and soon scarred mobster Fogarty (Ed Harris) is in Tom’s diner calling him “Joey” and telling him there are some men who would really like to see him.
Though A History of Violence hits upon various themes that are prevalent in every society, it is uniquely American in its scope. There is a strange element of the human psyche that allows us to hold polar opposites with almost equal regard. Cronenberg understands that we prize our dreams of Mayberry as much as we do our bloody visions of Al Capone and he locates, somewhere in the middle, the strange honor we attribute to the violent defense of the home from outside transgressors.
Like Spider, A History of Violence is an expertly staged character study anchored by a charismatic cinema idol that is at his best playing character roles. Mortensen is as good here as he has ever been, creating out of small movements–and a few camera angles courtesy of Mr. Cronenberg–a man split in half. Alternately a killer and loving husband, A History of Violence suggests that there may not be a difference between the two. Consider the female attraction to alpha males and the unspoken assumption that a man should protect his mate—violently if necessary. When it comes down to it, we’re still little more than murdering apes—a point touched upon in a late sex scene that is surprisingly vicious (well, I guess I shouldn’t be too surprised, it is Cronenberg). There isn’t much room for morality in that idea, but then there’s hardly ever room for morality when we’re confronted with meat-hook realities.
But Cronenberg is far from irresponsible. The themes of A History of Violence take root in a soil rich in humanism. The film’s sometimes shocking violence is there, not to push buttons, but to remind the audience of the inherent brutality of our high-minded ideals. Cronenberg shows the gore for the same reason that the Bush Administration would rather the public not see messy pictures from Iraq: it’s hard to be high-minded about violence in the name of anything when we’re confronted with the wet, messy reality of a human being dying.
A History of Violence is a timely and vital work.
Purchase or search for related items:
December 18th, 2006 at 9:43 pm
I remember having bought the ticket for “A History of Violence” with a sort of euphoric antecipation and a total lack of knowledge of what the movie was about, Cronenberg’s name was enough for me. Little did I know that this was a movie that was as opposite to cinematic masterpieces like “Naked Lunch”, “Videodrome”, or “eXistenZ” as one could get. 96 minutes later I walked out of the cinema with a blank desperate expression on my face, the world had crumbled all around me and strength had been drained from my knees, I had to sit down and ponder what the hell was this guy thinking to have conjured such an indiferent pointless work. The violence contained on the movie (it’s supposed to be a history of violence, right?) wasn’t shocking enough to make me squint or even pointless enough to make me laugh, it was just there. Seriously, if you manage to find a formula good enough to create a whole bunch of cult alternative movies, chances are you’re not good at making anything else but that, do us all a favor and stick with it.
January 11th, 2007 at 9:04 am
I don’t know where to start, MACC. You seem to be chastising Cronenberg for not following a formula, which is wrong on so many levels that I wonder how you’re a Cronenberg fan to begin with. History of Violence is an expert, stylized character study, not unlike Spider, Crash, or Dead Ringers. Three of Cronenberg’s best, if you ask me. Don’t blame the director or detract from the film because you don’t think it fits in with his body of work (it clearly does).