Explanations

[chani]

I usually don't review a film I didn't like but I think it's necessary to explain why I was so disappointed by  A History of Violence. Oh and there are a few moments I liked.

 I went to see it because I found the pitch intriguing, but I must confess that I've never been impressed by Cronenberg's movies in the past so I should have expected to be disappointed. It isn't the story or even the usual Cronenberg's messages (violence is inherent to mankid so you can't get rid of it and sex is connected to violence) that I didnt' like, it's the film. It had potential but what I saw on screen was disappointing. It was full of movie clichés and everything was done in a so not subtle way. Without Viggo Mortensen who was actually good and whose acting gave some ambiguity and subversion to the film, and without Ed Harris' charisma, it would have been lame. Both actors saved the movie, but still it isn't a good movie.

I started cringing during the first scene that introduced the killers. It was obvious in many details that they were bad boys, the kind of bad boys you ran into in westerns. I was okay with that wink because it set up things and when the elder said he's going to check-out we had to expect something bad. When he came back from "checking-out" you could see him cleaning his hands with some cloth and throwing it away. That's the details telling us he did some dirty job inside of the office!

We couldn't not guess that he had killed the people, besides he casually told his young partner who asked him why he was so long, that there was some issue with the maid but he fixed it. So far it was good and it was enough. But then the scene took a turn for the worse.  Because of course the director had to show us the office in the most conventional way. The young killer had to get some water, the elder told him there was  a water fountain inside, the camera followed the young guy, not showing the corpses and the blood first (as if there was the least suspens about it!) and then we got the shots of the people who have been killed. Then a frightened little girl showed up of course and the young guy killed her.

And the film is like that all the time. Almost every scene is predictable and stereotyped in that movie. It's so unsubtle.

Here's another example. When Viggo's character is injured, lying on the grass after he killed Ed Harris' minions. Of course we got the line "I should have killed you in Philly". First it's again a cliché-line that you expect (of couse I hoped he wasn't going to say it and crossed my fingers but he did) and secondly I think the revelation came too soon, ruining the only interest/suspens of the movie that was to know whether our good guy was really Tom Stall, the good father/husband and good citizen, or a former man of violence named Joey Cusak. BTW here again we have a cliché: the small town is peacefull and violence comes from the big city (Philadelphia). So Tom Stall turned out to be an impostor who lied about his past, and yes he was really the crazy mobster Harris was looking for.

 The film seems to show a certain spiral of violence, but I think it would have been more intriguing to see violence spreading within the small town and the hero's family. Cronenberg did it a little with the son who is kinda contaminated by his father's violence, or with the Tom/Edi couple. The raw sex scene in the stairs is well done btw. That's one of the things I liked in the film, not only Tom's violence but also Edi's and because it's obiously the first time they have it rough. Tom revealed himself through his couple's sexuality that was rather vanilla until then. It showed also that you can share someone's intimacy and still not knowing that person. You hide and reveal as well in sex. Here Cronenberg explored interesting depths. I also liked the scene in which his son shoots the villain, Ed Harris, saving Tom's life (reproducing Tom's actions when he shot the 2 crooks to save his clients and thus became a hero among the community). The father stands up then with that look on his face and you can feel a real menace and a thrill. For a few seconds we aren't sure that he is not going to kill his own son. Viggo Mortensen played that ambiguity quite well.

But the film left the thriller when Tom's past, as Joey, came to haunt him again through a phone call and he had to return to Philly and faced his brother. In the brother's house the film suddenly changed its style and we got some unrealistic scenes of violence that called Schwarznegger's movies to my mind. It was simply enormous and laughable. Did the director want to make a parody here? The problem is when Mortensen comes back home, how can we care about that supposedly moving ending after such laughable scenes?

Besides the so predictable scenes, the change of style is really a big problem in the movie. I think that whether you make a parody (like the  "Kiss Kiss Bang Bang" with Downey Jr and Kilmer) or you stick to the thriller but you can't do both in one film .

Comments

[sister-luck.livejournal.com]

Hmm. I saw A History of Violence a few weeks ago, but my reaction is different. I think it was a good film, because it made me think a lot.
Yes, Cronenberg uses the clichés, he sometimes relies too heavily on style over substance, but there's more to it than that, I believe.
I liked the same things you did, but I saw more. I didn't mind that the film wasn't subtle. Violence isn't subtle and it wasn't presented that way.
And I disagree that the small town was presented as peaceful - the main character wanted it to be peaceful, because he wanted to escape the violence of his old life, but there's violence underneath this peaceful exterior. We got to see that when Tom's son hangs out in the town centre and the bully from his school drives up in his big car. All the scenes at school are full of violence - the way sport is used to find an outlet for example.
And for me the big question wasn't whether Tom Stall was really Joey Cusak, but whether a person can escape their violent past, redeem himself even. I doubt that Tom managed to do that - it came back and while he dealt with it, I think it has changed his family forever.
I don't think that the style changed in the Philly scenes - Tom's self-defense in the diner showed the same very methodical (and over-the-top) approach to doling out violence, but I can see that there are problems with it. When I went to see it, lots of people laughed during these scenes. I didn't think it was funny - shocking yes, but not funny. I didn't think it was meant as a parody, but I can see that it might appear so. And I agree that this is a huge flaw in the movie.

[frenchani.livejournal.com]

I did laugh too during the Philly scene, I wasn't shocked at all, and I don't think it was Cronenberg's goal. All the heaviness really bothered me, that and the last scenes ruined the theme of the film, what you called the big question.

Yes violence isn't subtle but a writing can be subtle or refreshing while showing very raw violence (think of Hanecke's Funny Games). The problem here is the over-the-top violence that is very Hollywood-like and doesn't suit the supposed realistic theme of the film IMO.

You're right about the Highschool scenes though.

[frenchani.livejournal.com]

Maybe I wasn't clear enough, but when I said that the question to know whether Tom was Joey or not was the interest of the film, I didn't mean it was the theme of the film, but it was the only thing really well done, mostly thanks to Mortensen's acting, while the general theme about violence (what I called the potential of the film) would have deserved a better writing and directing IMO...hence my disappointment.

[sister-luck.livejournal.com]

I actually haven't written a review of the film because my opinion is still not fully-formed. I can't say much more than 'It made me think'.
And another thing I forgot: Cronenberg leaves a lot uncommented and I don't know what he thinks about some of the things he presents, but I've got my own conclusions.
What I found most disturbing was that no one around Tom questions the violence he uses in the diner scene. They only see the 'heroic' aspect of it. They praise him for it.

[frenchani.livejournal.com]

Is n't the fact they only praise him a way for Cronenberg to comment it? think it's kinda the vision of a Canadian on American's society. What Tom did was very western-like. That was a diner but it could have been a saloon.

But you're wrong (sorry), Tom's son sort of questioned his use of violence when he said "you just shoot them" (I'm paraphrasing), you know before the slap on his face!

On the contrary Tom's wife did not. She even seemed quite turned on by her husband's violence. She said she liked that, which speaks volume on Cronenberg's idea of female sexuality.

[herself_nyc]

Pretty much my reaction exactly.