*** Official A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[Rich Malloy]

Is that right? Well, that does put a quite different gloss on it.

Sorta removes all the impact of the final scene, though doesn't it? Or are we to understand that although the family may not know with specificity why he went to Philly and what happened there, that it's basically known what generally went down with the tacit agreement that some things are best left unspoken?

 

[Holadem]

That's my reading, Rich, for the near future anyway. Who knows how long they will keep it together? These events transpired in a matter of days, but will take much longer to fully process, if ever. Despite the implicitly hopeful ending, I don't see a very bright future for this family.

--
H

 

[Rich Malloy]

Hopeful from a certain perspective, I guess, but my reading was a bit darker than that - more along the lines of what one's conscience would ultimately allow simply to maintain one's circumstances. In this case, murder. Murder in order to cover up a previous life's murders (and not the self-defence kind, but the "for fun or money" kind), and to maintain the fiction of an upstanding family and family-man. I thought it was clear the family's understanding that "Joey" had to dispose of a few connections to his sordid past. And, of course, their acquiescence and affirmation of those acts.

A bright future for the family? I don't know that the film really anticipates much in this regard (like say "In the Bedroom" does). Rather, I think the ending is a bit more evocative of a simpler proposition: the human conscience will abide the vile and evil to maintain the appearance of goodness and social standing, and more importantly the comforts and security that brings. This view of humanity is more than a tad misanthropic, but also expresses a certain truth I think. Not at all unlike those parables of a darker disposition that explore the shadowy recesses of the human psyche. There is not much room for redemption here, nor any celebration of the better angels of our nature.

 

[Quentin]

I'll take you one step further...violence is NOT evil. It is violence. And, it is a part of all of us. We are here today, still, because we are violent. It is our history and our nature. Civilization and civilized behavior are masks we wear to advance society and further the cause of civilization, but the shadow of our origin will always be with us. So, it is not about what the conscience will abide as much as it is about what we all are and what we must live with and deal with. Most of us don't accept it or deal with it or abide by it. Most of us are in denial of our true nature. But, Joey and his family, having been confronted with the truth, must face it, accept it, and live with it.

I don't think it is a misanthropic view as much as a Darwinian, cynical view. I also don't think it is necessarily hopeful. Can the family deal with it? I dunno. Will they remain together? Maybe. Who knows if any family will remain together. I don't see "Joey" as a secret they must keep as much as a truth that they have all had their eyes opened to. Will they survive it?

 

[Stephen_L]

It may be splitting hairs but what Joey/Tom did in his town and Philly was a bit shy of murder. He attacked no one until he was attacked. (Even in his brother's house) One of the disquieting elements of the film is the contrast between the admirable context of Tom's violence (protect himself, his coffee shop workers, his family) and the horrific execution and consequences of those acts. As Cronenberg says in his commentary, Tom defends his family/friends/himself but just when the audience should be cheering the hero, we see the gurgling, pumping, mangled products of the acts.

Violence is not always 'murder'; it can be self-defense and the protection of others from harm.

 

[Rich Malloy]

Certainly. And Tom's actions in the diner and on his front lawn fall within those categories.

I'll need to check out those penultimate scenes in Philly again, as I was under the (mistaken?) impression that Tom had gone there solely for the purpose of killing those who represented any connection to his past, to finally put an end to "Joey" and anyone who might resurrect him. And, of course, these killings are committed to cover up the earlier ones that done solely "for fun or money".

Quentin, I mostly disagree with your view of the film, but I accept your basic proposition. However, most of us wouldn't accept that behind our masks of civility we're each of us willing to murder simply to get ahead or maintain our status. On the other hand, we accept (or look the other way or remain wilfully ignorant of) acts that are committed in our name by those persons/offices/institutions to which we've consented to act upon our behalf. It's a distinction without much difference, morally speaking, and perhaps an even worse state of affairs to the extent that such violence or inequity occurs by proxy simply because it allows us to maintain the fiction of self-righteousness (so long as we don't peer too closely at what horribleness is committed "in our name").

 

[Holadem]

Very well said, I entirely agree.

--
H

 

[Quentin]

As noted, Cronenberg purposefully shows the results of such 'good' acts. Why? Because he is saying violence is violence. It is our current civilized notions of what is good and what is bad. Thousands of years ago, cavemen would kill over meat or fire. That was acceptable then. Now, it is not...but, it IS acceptable to annihilate those guys in the cafe. Cronenberg is pointing out that it is ALL violence and it is inside us all...burned into our genetic structure. Part of our history (the Cain and Abel symbolism not a mistake) You can label it good or courageous or bloody or evil.

Some would argue that going to Philly to kill his brother and company is also defense of his family. Which is why I thought it should have been even more over the top, bloody, and frightening than the cafe.

 

[Stephen_L]

As I recall, Tom/Joey told his brother he was there to "make peace". T/J was no idiot and I'm sure he realized how it was all likely to end. But its telling that he walked into his brother's lair without weapons and made no aggressive moves until he was attacked. In fact in the entire film Tom/Joey never started a fight, began every fight unarmed (even in the yard where he dropped his shotgun to save his son) though he appropriated weapons in the fights. I think Cronenbergs point was to shake up our view of heroic action; the rah-rah, satisfying violence that gets audiences cheering. Every act of violence in the film could be viewed as 'just', a moral character acting to defend himself or others. Cronenberg however makes us look anew at even this violence, keeping it close, bloody, dirty, hand to hand (not antiseptic like sniper shooting or bombing) At every moment of just triumph he stops our cheers with views of dying, mangled men, gurgling and spitting up their own blood. It is not to condemn the violence, but show it for what it is. He also toys with the disquieting thought that while violence is despicable, it is also necessary. Ebert mentioned in his review of the film that if 'Joey' had not been in that diner, everyone would have died. Maybe we need 'Joey's and 'Toms'.

For my own self, I have no problem with the issue of violence. It is an ugly, despicable mode of action, devoutly to be avoided. However, I recognize that there are people in the world for whom violence is the only currency they recognize. Sadly, violence is often the only means to resist or stop such individuals.

 

[Chris PC]

I really hated this movie. I thought it sucked. I knew pretty much what it was about from the trailer. Dull, dull, dull. I like movies that are interesting and/or surprising. This was neither. Bad acting too. Sorry to rain on the parade, but I just saw this and it was like sticking a dirty fork in my eye. Eyyuch!

 

[Robert Crawford]

Since, many people liked this film and you didn't then it appears if anybody's parade been rain on, it is yours. Sorry you didn't like the film.





Crawdaddy

 

[Chris PC]

Ok, fair enough. I am sorry to post a negative comment here, thats all. I am not the only person who dislikes this film. There are lots of people on Internet Movie DataBase forum who also dislike this movie, so I am not the only one. It does have a good rating on IMDB, so I guess if thats what people like, then I find that really weird. In my mind, it simply doesn't compare to other similarly rated movies. I would rather watch something like True Romance or Clay Pidgeons than this movie. I guess reactions are mixed. Some like it and some hate it. I cannot convince anybody this is a bad movie, but while I was watching it, I found it extremely un-interesting, boring, and dull. I wasn't interested, I wasn't surprised, I wasn't ever in suspense, I didn't care about any of the badly acted characters, and I was not entertained.

 

[Rich Malloy]

Chris, you're certainly not the first to post a negative opinion of "A History of Violence", and that's absolutely allowed. I'm a big fan of Cronenberg, and I liked this film very much when I first saw it, but I have to concede that it's dropped a bit in my estimation after seeing it again. Not a great deal, but I'm not sure I'd place it in the top-tier of great Cronenberg films with the likes of "Dead Ringers", "Videodrome", "The Fly", "eXistenZ", "Naked Lunch", "Spider". But that's just my opinion. You mentioned "True Romance", a film that in my opinion sucks saggy donkey balls and was directed by the most pretentious, worthless hack in Hollywood... you may be surprised to learn that there are some who disagree with me.

And though you're not the first to voice a negative opinion on "A History of Violence", you may well be the first viewer from Toronto to lay the smackdown on your hometown boy like that!

And even if I don't consider "Violence" among his best, I do regard Cronenberg as the finest director to ever emerge from your fine town, from the University of Toronto, and I think it's to his credit that even now he prefers to film there with local crews, etc. I also think Toronto boasts the world's greatest film festival. You're lucky to live in such a cinematically vibrant community, with great directors like Cronenberg in residence... even if you don't care for 'em all the time!

 

[Chris PC]

I guess it can be seen as bad when you speak against your local citizens etc. I really hated the movie very much and was shocked at how disappointed I was with this film. I could not understand what was interesting in the movie. If you didn't like True Romance, thats something I can respect. I didn't come on here to preach my views and get into an intense arguement, I just thought there must be other people out there who disliked the movie too. I didn't read this entire thread.

While I am a Canadian and so is David Cronenberg, the person who made this film, but I won't pull punches, and in fact, I may have hit harder than normal, and maybe that is not such a good idea. I just feel betrayed and disappointed with the movie. I went to the University of Toronto myself actually. As far as being shot in Canada, I could tell it was highly likely that the town was probably in an Ontario town just because of the look of the architecture and the plants (trees) etc.

Anyhow, I am glad to communicate with somebody and say I think History of Violence sucked, and True Romance was great, and hear you say you liked HOV and hated TR. It doesn't upset me that you hated TR, although it does surprise me a bit. Its ok though I admit there are loads of things about the movie I don't like. Cristian Slater is not a great actor, and sometimes his acting fell short, but I think he did fairly good in this movie, better than his other films. Patricia wasn't perfect either, but she did ok I thought. Lots of other good actors and I thought the acting was good. If you hated it, thats totally cool. I am of the belief that you are free to dislike or like a movie however you see fit. It is important not to let other peoples opinions etc affect how you view things.

Anyhow, perhaps I will look at some DC films I haven't seen yet, or not in a long time.

Is there a newer version of Videodrome out there? Is it anamorphic?

 

[Rich Malloy]

Criterion released an amazing special edition of "Videodrome" (anamorphic, myriad extras). If you like that movie, then definitely check out this DVD.

BTW, I spent alot of time in Toronto last fall. All work-related trips, but with plenty of time at night to explore the city. It's a great place to visit, and I suspect an equally great place to live. Fine dining galore!

 

[Mike Graham]

Re-watched the film last night, and enjoyed it much better. Mortensen's performance is wonderful when you already know the truth about the character. When Tom is watching the TV news and sees his face plastered everywhere, he subtly becomes more and more nervous...

The same is also true for Hurt's turn as his brother, Ritchie. Many people seem to have been skeptical when Hurt got the Oscar nod for best supporting actor, but on the second viewing you can really see how much sliminess and intimidation Hurt was able to bring to the role with so little screen time.

 

[Rakesh.S]

wow..did this movie suck horribly or what? the trailer was so promising and then it was just horrendous.

They gave Hurt a nomination for his 5 minutes on screen? Just goes to show you the quality of films that were released last year. I'd much rather have seen Michael Caine nominated for his performance in Batman Begins.

 

[Mike Graham]

Ouch