A History of Violence
David Cronenberg’s A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE was up for a couple of Oscars this year, and I think it should have been up for at least a couple more. This is one of 2005’s very best films, and a real home run in a change-of-pace risk from Cronenberg.
Viggo Mortensen plays Tom, a happily married family man and diner owner in a sleepy small town where Nothing Ever Happens. Then one night, as the diner is about to close, two crooks make trouble, and Tom shoots them dead in self defense, instantly (and relucantly) becoming a media hero. Showing up almost as quickly as the cameras are a couple of goombahs, lead by a facially scarred Ed Harris, who claims to know Tom from the past … as a mobster. Tom denies the charges, but as danger surrounds him and his beloved family, he’s forced to show his true colors.
VIOLENCE plays out like a modern-day Western, except that the line between good and bad is blurred in the case of our protagonist. Mortensen gives a strong performance (one I didn’t know he was capable of), as does Maria Bello as his wife and the Oscar-nominated William Hurt in a small, showy role as a mob boss. The script – from a Vertigo graphic novel – is pretty sharp, but Cronenberg’s expert direction is what makes this thing work. Except for one or two gore shots, you wouldn’t know he was responsible, as this is far outside his usual weirdo, open-sore fare. The job he does is really quite remarkable, and it’s a shame he wasn’t recognized by the Academy as such. Twenty years from now, MUNICH and GOOD NIGHT AND GOOD LUCK will be forgotten, but A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE will be regarded as somewhat of a lost-in-the-shuffle classic.
March 22nd, 2006 at 11:29 am
and if it wasn’t for the one or two gore shots, I’d be really interested in seeing this. I just don’t understand Cronenberg’s obsession with ensuring a place for gore in every one of his projects, regardless of the genre. I may eventually see it, but Munich and Good Night and Good Luck are a lot higher on my rental list.
March 22nd, 2006 at 11:36 am
I don’t understand it, either, but here the gore shots serve an entirely different purpose. They’re quick, but serve as a reminder that violence is not something to be glorified.
March 22nd, 2006 at 11:45 am
“up for a couple of Oscars”
“modern-day Western”
“the line between good and bad is blurred”
“classic”
Man, David Cronenberg’s gone nowhere but downhill since he was the evil Dr. Decker in “Nightbreed.”
March 22nd, 2006 at 12:14 pm
Don’t forget his role as the evil Dr. Wimmer in JASON X!
March 22nd, 2006 at 2:27 pm
You forgot to mention it’s other selling point–Maria Bello in a cheerleader outfit.
March 22nd, 2006 at 2:28 pm
Given Viggo’s heroic deeds where the audience surely feels a giddiness, Cronenberg felt it important to show the audience the results/aftermath. This is a critical study of the human (and American) response to violence. Without showing the consequences, it wouldn’t work. In fact, the entire film is about the consequences of violence.
This is a stand-alone film in Cronenberg’s filmography and shouldn’t be compared to his past works, or have his past works be held against this film. It’s definitely one of his best films but not because it’s different than his others. VIDEODROME and THE FLY are also among his best. That’s my 2cents, at least.
March 22nd, 2006 at 3:33 pm
I understand the theory of showing the consequences of violence in that context, I guess I just have issue with what seems to me to be Cronenberg’s obsession. It’s almost as if he approaches every script looking to make sure that there’s something in there he can make disturbing and possibly nauseating. Scorcese’s given us a lot of violence over the years, but he’s still able to give us the occasional flick without an icepick in the skull or heads crushed in vices.
March 22nd, 2006 at 4:04 pm
Yeah, the ones not worth seeing!
March 22nd, 2006 at 4:21 pm
Well, you’re clearly not a Cronenberg fan but it would be a shame if your prejudice prevented you from seeing one of the most provocative movies in recent years. Cronenberg’s use of violence and gore has been fetishistic in the past, no doubt, but that’s not the case here.
March 22nd, 2006 at 5:19 pm
Are you not a gore / horror fan, Brian?
March 22nd, 2006 at 6:35 pm
I like the horror, and I like the funny, over-the-top gore (Evil Dead and such, though I shan’t be catching SLITHER, even with Jenna Fischer in it), but I’ve never really had much of a stomach for the realistic, even if it’s sort of in a fantastical context, like THE FLY or EXISTENZ (which was just a really, really negative experience for me).
And Rod, remember, for every KUNDUN, there’s an AFTER HOURS…
…okay, maybe not, but I heard THE AVIATOR wasn’t half bad.
March 22nd, 2006 at 7:10 pm
Am I the only one who is enthusiastically excited for SLITHER???
March 23rd, 2006 at 8:48 am
I CAN”T WAIT for Slither. It’s actually higher up on my “gotta-see” list than Snakes on a Plane.
As for complaining about Cronenberg’s obsession with the visceral, all I can say is I highly doubt we would be talking about him now if it weren’t for his personal fixations. In many cases the difference between an artist and a hack is that the artist is compelled to expose their obsessions to the world over and over again, while the hack is content to go with the flow and forsake their own creative desires to give the audience what it wants.
I’m not saying you have to buy what Cronenberg is selling, but I think you do him a disservice by describing him as only a purveyor of perverse violence. Clearly the esteem with which he is held in the creative community is proof that his films are more than a collection of grisly special effects–they are all sub-textual goldmines that reward the viewer with new ideas and insights every time you watch them. Cronenberg makes violent films because that is how he is best able to get the themes that fascinate him across, and I for one am very glad he does.
And, for the record, the non-violent (physically if not emotional) The King of Comedy is my favorite Scorsese movie.
March 23rd, 2006 at 10:31 am
Don’t get me wrong that I think Cronenberg is some sort of hack…I pretty much put him in my (fairly small) list of GREAT ARTISTS I JUST DON’T GET. Some day I might really dig his stuff, but I can’t ignore that there are certain things that I’m really squeamish about and he always seems to hit those for me.
I feel similarly about Todd Solondz. I gave his first two a try but, after HAPPINESS, I’ll never go back.
Who knows, though? 20 years ago I hated Elvis Costello and Steely Dan.
March 23rd, 2006 at 5:06 pm
Cronenberg definitely knows people’s squeamish thresholds. And to amend an earlier post, I wouldn’t actually say he uses violence and gore so much as a more vague creation one could call “physiolgical horror” or some kind of “physical insanity” that is more disturbing simply because there’s no context for it.
It’s definitely not for everyone so I don’t fault Brian or anyone else from shying away. But I still stand by A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE, even for non-fans of Cronenberg.
June 2nd, 2006 at 7:56 am
[...] Did you like Viggo Mortensen in A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE? What about Angelina Jolie in MR. AND MRS. SMITH or Uma Thurman in KILL BILL? Then you’ll love Victor Gischler’s SHOTGUN OPERA, a maniacally paced, over-the-top Grand Guignol of guns, killing, guns, more killing, more guns, more killing, and did I say there were guns involved? If shooting a gun is the aria in this opera, then they are sung well and loud, but perhaps the libretto needs a little tinkering. [...]
July 25th, 2006 at 6:18 pm
THIS IS ONE HELL OF AN AWESOME SITE FIRST OF ALL. I REALLY LOVE THE LAYOUT OF
THE WHOLE THING BUT……….
PLEASE TELL ME YOU
THINK ABOUT THIS PIC OF ANGELINA ON MY DEDICATION PAGE TO HER