Alex Spindler
Senior HTF Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2000
- Messages
- 3,971
Bit late to the discussion, and it looks like my point of view is shared with several already in this thread. But a few words about the son and school bully confrontation.
This is one of the parts which I like the most. In their little fishbowl, being on the top of the pyramid of high school sports is probably the pinnacle of the bully's life. He's on a path to be nothing more than the nameless broke sociopaths that he nearly runs into on the street. He only needs a minor justification to pick on the weak fish, which Jack certainly fits the bill.
Raised by Tom Stall to use his brain and avoid confrontation, Jack defuses the situation tactfully at the loss of his dignity and doing little more than delay or stall future confrontations. Later, the bully would have picked a fight on the street if not for intervention from elsewhere and stops him in the hall just to make fun of his father.
Now, in contrast, his 'new' father has done something amazing. He's not only dealt with a confrontation violently (and successfully), but he's lauded for it. Nobody stops to give a thought that a man they think as relatively normal has killed his first human being, they pat him on the back and applaud and interview him. Later, when faced with a future threat on his family, Jack hears that his dad runs to the rescue, shotgun on the table. He asks him, 'what if you were right'. That just nails the entire discussion on how Jack perceives violence. If they had been there, holding his mother hostage, he imagines his 'new' dad leaping to action and gunning them down, saving the day. That's the turning point for Jack.
It's what allows him to screw up his courage in the school hallway. The bully nails it as well, asking if he's anything like his dad. Jack used to be like his 'old' father, but taking a cue from his 'new' dad, he doesn't just stand up he throws the first punch (and shots to the groin and kicks on the ground).
How is this received? Tom, still not having re-embraced Joey's nature, beats his son. From his former perspective, he's very disappointed in his son and doesn't realize that he's the role model for this new behavior.
Now, when the family is really in jeopardy (Jack is in custody, men with guns are on the lawn) Tom evaporates entirely. No more pretense about not knowing anyone, and he's no longer even interested in negotiation. In the diner, Tom is fully in control and tries to talk down the situation, appealing to the nature of the robbers by offering them money. It's only when someone is about to die that Joey's talents spring into action almost like latent physical memory. On the lawn, Joey has no intention of ever getting in the car. He gets his son out of the line of fire and is bound and determined to finish this in blood. As he's not completely effective, and Fogerty stands over him at the finish, his son (following his father's unspoken directive) fires and kills the threat. Tom's son would never have done this, but Joey's son certain would. And how is this received? Tom is gone and Joey is all that remains, so he approaches and embraces his son.
I've conveyed this other places, but the sex scenes carry this same kind of disparity. Tom has sex in a PG-13 way, full of innocent naughtiness and a bit of wonder and love. Joey has sex in a very direct way, harsh and unceremonious. His wife responds in kind, and is very content after having sex with Tom. But sex with Joey is something she doesn't enjoy and is disgusted with him and herself afterwards (he sleeps on the couch afterwards). I think Cronenberg's choice to not have nudity during the sex scenes and to have them last just long enough that everyone in the audience gets uncomfortable is really telling. The scenes are a statement, and not just there for titillation. They weren't non-nude to avoid ratings problems either. Heck, you get a full frontal shot a minute later in a familiar and accidental way as any married couple would and Bello quickly closes the door. I suspect she isn't comfortable being naked around Joey.
I think it's pretty silly to suggest that those who don't 'get' the film don't like art films. Some films resonate with people and some films don't. Ebert (and I) might like films like Domino while others would rather have their eyelids torn out rather than see it again. There are no prerequisites to liking a film like A History of Violence, and Cronenberg of all directors offers such a wide variety of film that you aren't even clearly going to like it if you've liked his other films. As a narrative, the film is not particularly deep and approaching it in just that way won't net you much other than some visceral thrills in the artful action sequences (which are necessarily brief and less than glamorous).
This is one of the parts which I like the most. In their little fishbowl, being on the top of the pyramid of high school sports is probably the pinnacle of the bully's life. He's on a path to be nothing more than the nameless broke sociopaths that he nearly runs into on the street. He only needs a minor justification to pick on the weak fish, which Jack certainly fits the bill.
Raised by Tom Stall to use his brain and avoid confrontation, Jack defuses the situation tactfully at the loss of his dignity and doing little more than delay or stall future confrontations. Later, the bully would have picked a fight on the street if not for intervention from elsewhere and stops him in the hall just to make fun of his father.
Now, in contrast, his 'new' father has done something amazing. He's not only dealt with a confrontation violently (and successfully), but he's lauded for it. Nobody stops to give a thought that a man they think as relatively normal has killed his first human being, they pat him on the back and applaud and interview him. Later, when faced with a future threat on his family, Jack hears that his dad runs to the rescue, shotgun on the table. He asks him, 'what if you were right'. That just nails the entire discussion on how Jack perceives violence. If they had been there, holding his mother hostage, he imagines his 'new' dad leaping to action and gunning them down, saving the day. That's the turning point for Jack.
It's what allows him to screw up his courage in the school hallway. The bully nails it as well, asking if he's anything like his dad. Jack used to be like his 'old' father, but taking a cue from his 'new' dad, he doesn't just stand up he throws the first punch (and shots to the groin and kicks on the ground).
How is this received? Tom, still not having re-embraced Joey's nature, beats his son. From his former perspective, he's very disappointed in his son and doesn't realize that he's the role model for this new behavior.
Now, when the family is really in jeopardy (Jack is in custody, men with guns are on the lawn) Tom evaporates entirely. No more pretense about not knowing anyone, and he's no longer even interested in negotiation. In the diner, Tom is fully in control and tries to talk down the situation, appealing to the nature of the robbers by offering them money. It's only when someone is about to die that Joey's talents spring into action almost like latent physical memory. On the lawn, Joey has no intention of ever getting in the car. He gets his son out of the line of fire and is bound and determined to finish this in blood. As he's not completely effective, and Fogerty stands over him at the finish, his son (following his father's unspoken directive) fires and kills the threat. Tom's son would never have done this, but Joey's son certain would. And how is this received? Tom is gone and Joey is all that remains, so he approaches and embraces his son.
I've conveyed this other places, but the sex scenes carry this same kind of disparity. Tom has sex in a PG-13 way, full of innocent naughtiness and a bit of wonder and love. Joey has sex in a very direct way, harsh and unceremonious. His wife responds in kind, and is very content after having sex with Tom. But sex with Joey is something she doesn't enjoy and is disgusted with him and herself afterwards (he sleeps on the couch afterwards). I think Cronenberg's choice to not have nudity during the sex scenes and to have them last just long enough that everyone in the audience gets uncomfortable is really telling. The scenes are a statement, and not just there for titillation. They weren't non-nude to avoid ratings problems either. Heck, you get a full frontal shot a minute later in a familiar and accidental way as any married couple would and Bello quickly closes the door. I suspect she isn't comfortable being naked around Joey.
I think it's pretty silly to suggest that those who don't 'get' the film don't like art films. Some films resonate with people and some films don't. Ebert (and I) might like films like Domino while others would rather have their eyelids torn out rather than see it again. There are no prerequisites to liking a film like A History of Violence, and Cronenberg of all directors offers such a wide variety of film that you aren't even clearly going to like it if you've liked his other films. As a narrative, the film is not particularly deep and approaching it in just that way won't net you much other than some visceral thrills in the artful action sequences (which are necessarily brief and less than glamorous).
