those are some… loose ties, to say the least.
i love a history of violence, although the first time i saw it i wasn’t as enthralled as i am now with it.
I’m not too sure on all those particular connections between Bronson and History of Violence but it’s interesting that you have taken some of those ideas to thought.
History of Violence is a good film because like Josh said, it is one that grows on you. I really didn’t enjoy the film too much on first viewing, but found it to be enthralling whenever I rewatched it. That’s just how it goes sometimes.
Alright…I’m a huge fan of Bronson, but even I wouldn’t make those leaps in connecting the two. Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s awesome that you did associate the recent film and deceased actor, but I bet with enough effort you could do the same for just about any film and actor.
On a side note, I thought ‘History’ was innovative in that a husband was having passionate (I guess that’s what you would call it) sex with his wife, but since she was seeing this person for who he truly was (a homicidal stranger) for the first time, she was also being raped. I don’t know…I couldn’t remember a film ever doing that before….and it had me thinking for quite a while afterward.
The sex scene is amazing, and I think it’s one of the best uses of sexuality in cinema in recent years. Seeing as how the two personalities of Viggo’s character are so conflicted, he begins to force himself on her, but then thinks better of it and starts to pull away, and it is, in fact, Maria Bello who pulls him back on top of her. It’s so revealing not only with regards to her character, but also to the struggle inherent in his past coming back to haunt him.
…and the final scene is stunning, and perfect.
Aw, guys… I hate that movie. I was so let-down because the critical reception was great. It was constantly predictable—I think that’s what I hated most about it. And I felt like the acting was weak.
WTF? Maybe I’m missing something.
Those are some very loose ties, but I applaud you for digging into all of them. Very admirable.
How did you find it predictable. Jonathan? Did you just walk into it and immediately spot it as one more tired example of that same old shopworn story where a guy who runs a small town cafe and has a nice little family turns out to be a killer with a violent mob past who has completely changed his personality? Regular Nostradamus, you are.
Me, I found it surprising and interesting from the beginning, and I loved it’s structure, the way it started by introducing us to characters who will soon be dead, and then concludes with a new character we’ve never seen before.
Huh? No, I mean the plot “twists,” I saw them coming. It’s the way it was written—I could tell what was going to happen, probably because they laid the foreshadowing down too thick or something. So to me, nothing felt like a “twist.” I was just bored instead.
But thank you. I’ve always wanted to be like Nostradamus.
Seems to me like someone is a Bronson fan alright, but anyway, I didn’t like this film at first… maybe thanks to my dad being watching it with me, he really tends to spoil every film I watch, but anyway, I saw it a couple of times after that, and I got to love it, I agree with Jonathan in that the twists are predictable, but I don’t think that makes it a bad film, I mean, You know what’s going to happen at the end of Schindler’s list, Don’t you?, and it’s still a gorgeous film. I think this is the kind of film you should be watching and judging for its content, not for its plot, I mean the characters are so great, this is trully a character film, more than anything, so try to watch it that way, if not, maybe you’ll enjoy something like The Departed or The Maltese Falcon better, films which, by the way, also have some character development, but in the end focus more on the plot.
I don’t think History of Violence focuses on plot twists, but more the effect a person’s actions can have. The final shot is absolutely magnificent and really, to me, sums up the purpose of the movie. It’s not the violence, it’s not the quote unquote twist, it’s the family and their breakdown.
Yeah, but even so, I think a film should still surprise and enlighten. For me, it didn’t do either. Maybe I was also put off by the acting and the character development, which I also thought was weak.
I’ll tell you, though, I liked the first 10 minutes. I wanted the movie to be about those guys.
Anyone read the comic book on which this is based?
Anyone read the comic book on which this is based?
Im coming back to basically quote J Wing although I know very well that overall this is a film that generally gets extremely good reviews. And to Ed: maybe one day we could make that effort and find clues in other films and actors , it would make a funny game…. De La Vega: the Bronson fan you mean Cronemberg.?… I also didnt like Schindler’s List, but for different reasons than lack of character development or the memorable procession of elderly jews at the end
I don’t recall seeing another movie like it.
Even if the film isn’t groundbreaking or innovative in the context of all of cinema’s history (but we’d never really have anything develop if everything was that way, either), but this film I think really needs to be looked at as groundbreaking and innovative in terms of Cronenberg. Granted I haven’t seen all of Spider, but this film seemed to me to bring together the intensity of his more visceral works with the more upfront humanity in his works such as Spider.
Spider took a long time to get going. Fiennes in the title role was tough company for two hours.
yeah, the sex scenes are the most pure Cronenberg moments in the film—they weren’t in Josh Olsen’s screenplay, by the way.
Nawid,
I’ve read the graphic novel and it’s really pale in comparison.
Just now saw this for the first time. I am not sure what I think about this. On the one hand, I’m pretty impressed. On the other hand, I’m disgusted. My immediate reaction to this film is not one of the intellect, but of the gut. One thing I question about the film, though, is that while much of the film is critical of violence, the ending doesn’t seem to give any hint of the possible consequences of the violence Joey/Tom has just enacted. What happens when the bodies of his latest victims are found? How can the family go on?
@ Ed is Dead: Interesting you mention what can be described, in a way, as “the rape scene.” It reminded me somewhat of Straw Dogs.
This film gets better and better with each viewing. It resonates well, is highly entertaining, simple yet brilliant, a great story, great performances and taut as hell, yet totally complete. And perhaps one of the best endings I’ve seen in a long time. Love it!
Jonathan: Hmm. I don’t know what to say. Maybe you just have a razor sharp intuition or something. I thought one of the great things about the movie was the ongoing plausibility that perhaps he was just caught up in this Kafka-esque mistaken identity scenario. There was enough convincing material on both sides that I was legitimately puzzled as to the truth of the situation until the definitive reveal.
What I like about Cronenberg, in general, is how he creates these situations where we can actually visualize the plot branching in either direction. Most movies where there’s an element of “what happens next?” typically rely on suspension of disbelief in order to make the viewer feel as though what ultimately happens is “unexpected” or “surprising.” But with Cronenberg, it often really is unexpected/surprising, because the story is set up such that it allows for any number of satisfactory departures.
Not only does A History of Violence get better with each viewing, as others have noted, but I find that my response to each scene varies, sometimes wildly, each time I watch it. It’s a really strange, unassuming little film.
Hank: One thing I question about the film, though, is that while much of the film is critical of violence, the ending doesn’t seem to give any hint of the possible consequences of the violence Joey/Tom has just enacted. What happens when the bodies of his latest victims are found? How can the family go on?
I think what the film does is it explores how violence permeates the lives of those touched by it, often in indirect and subtle ways. Tom’s defensive—yet brutal—act of violence in the restaurant attracts a group of people from a past in which he killed people for money. Jack (the son) uses his father’s violent “heroism” to justify brutalizing a bully in a somewhat unheroic way that crosses the line from defense and basically becomes assault. I think it questions the nature of violence, how we justify it, but at the same time, how it straddles and confounds the boundaries of these justifications. There is a sort of unnecessary brutality to Tom’s actions in the restaurant, but at the same time, his opponents were obviously looking to deal out great harm as well. I think Cronenberg handles this magically, making the scenes just brutal enough that we can’t quite leave thinking Tom or Jack are heroic good guys. And then there are the sex scenes, which violence becomes a part of in very strange and interesting ways. Edie is obviously stunned to find out that Tom isn’t really “Tom,” but at the same time, she finds something alluring about him being this other guy with a dark past, etc.
There’s a lot more to say, but I’ll stop rambling.
Bolo Tie, I agree. I got all that from the movie. I guess I just wanted a bit more from the ending than what it gave us. I mean, I wasn’t wanting an ending that tied up all the loose ends. But I did want something that hinted more at what was to come, because I assume all this didn’t take place in a vacuum.
Also, starting with the second sex scene, the whole film just made me want to puke. The way it bordered on rape, but then Edie seems to want it, and the actual act itself had so much violence, it was all just very overwhelming.
@ HANK: The reason I liked the ending so much is because it portrayed so realistically the future of this family, i.e. Tom/Joey’s and Edie’s future marital bliss: very, very uncertain. They love each other, they were once a very happy family, but will they ever return to the way they were? Most likely not. It’s kind of like the death of a child and the impact that would have on a family – everything is just so uncertain, and all you can do is try. We all know that most marriages crumble after the death of a child, but they try and make it work, right? I think that was the point trying to be conveyed in the very touching end scene where the little girl grabs the plate and silverware and sets a place at the table for her father. The ending, imo, wasn’t to provide closure, because oftentimes, as in real life, we just don’t know how things will turn out, but we must hope and try for the best.
That’s what I got from it.
Memories! Loved Bronson. Did you see him in the French Film, Rider on the Rain?
Hank: Well, I think what the ending basically says is “all this shit happened, the world is much different now than when we began, and now we have to deal with the ramifications of that.”
As for the sex stuff, I think that the the scene on the stairs is supposed to be uncomfortable. We’re supposed to feel like it’s on the line between rape and roleplay (it draws on the roleplay aspect from the movie’s earlier sex scene). Edie is at once repelled by and attracted to this different guy. I think Cronenberg is definitely playing around with the argument that people in the Western world, in general, have this same problematic relationship with violence.
Oh, yeah, I understand that about the sex. That scene made me really uncomfortable, but I did think it was really well done. It was such a contrast to the first sex scene which seemed to be more playful and maybe even loving? It was a very good movie and it was critical of violence without inadvertently glorifying violence (a problem some directors have encountered) and also explored the violent side of human nature. I thought it was interesting when Tom ended up slapping his son when he talked back after telling him that in their family they don’t settle disputes with violence.
Bolo’s comment is right on the money, but I would like to refine the thought a little further since I feel that initial sex scene is such an excellent example of loading multiple meanings into a single moment.
When Edie comes out wearing her cheerleader outfit, she isn’t simply taking on a generic sex role, she’s reembodying a previous incarnation of herself. The role she takes is or was her role at a younger age, so is it even a “role”? Can we separate our past self from our current self? This question will arise later when Tom’s past is brought into the picture. It seems that Edie believes that her past and his past have a different effect, for her it is just a role she can play with but she doesn’t appear to think of herself in the terms of that role currently, but when it comes to Tom’s violent past she has a harder time disassociating it from the person she believes she sees in front of her. His past is his present in a different way than hers. This irony is brought out further when she teases Tom for being a bad man when he goes down on her, suggesting a flirtation with the idea of “badness” that is contradicted when it is revealed that he really was bad before he met her.
After they make love she affirms that she loves him and says he is the best man she’s ever known, this creates a dissonance since she will find that the best man is also a bad man so the distinctions start to lose their meaning depending on what part of the past is focused on. This conflict will play out in the second sex session where Tom will duplicate Edie’s example of behaving as he did when he was young. Instead of “servicing” her, which echoes his position in the diner as someone who serves others and seems to suggest a shift in their relationship since Edie appeared to be the dominant member of the household before this. This time however Tom is clearly the dominant one, he takes/rapes her. Which, in a sense, responds to her wish in the car ride before the first sex scene, when she suggests that they should have had the chance to know each other as teenagers. The second sex scene fulfills that wish and leaves a dark and ambivalent feel to her earlier desire. They are both the same people they were, but knowledge of what has come before has changed their perceptions of themselves and each other and the power structure of their interacting.
This is teased out even further by her having appeared as a cheerleader since that ties to the earlier scene where their son is humiliated in the locker room after a baseball game. The connection between sports and aggressive physicality, which she used to cheer, is shown to have a darker side. The scene with the son responding with humor in order to diffuse the physical confrontation with the more athletic student is unsatisfying if we have identified with the son since he is left in an inferior and “disgraced” position. It’s hard to accept identification with the victimized without hoping that they will turn the situation around and become dominant. Of course, later on that’s just what happens but it isn’t anymore rewarding for opposite reasons. This again ties into the ambivalence suggested by Edie’s donning of the cheerleading outfit and our ambivalence towards violence and dominance in films and culture. We celebrate it and despise it at turns, but the boundaries between those two areas are unclear and mutable.
History of Violence plays off of some themes from classic westerns like High Noon and the films of John Ford. Can a violent man be integrated into society or will he always have to live on the fringes? What is the response of the family and town to the violent man? Tom represents both the role of protector and danger. He might defeat the other violent men but he also brings them forth. That the end of the film is ambivalent is necessary since the answers to those questions aren’t easily found.
A History of Violence like all of Cronenberg’s work is concerned with epistemological concerns about self and society. How do we understand who we are and what influences mediate that concern. The often expressed notion that Cronenberg’s later works some how represent a drop off from his earlier films is, to me, just wrong. If anything his films continue to dig deeper into the same concerns, but with increasing subtlety as he ages and refines his questioning. Outwardly the films may seem tamer, but looking into them at all will show he hasn’t “gone Hollywood” at all.
Anyway, I hope this makes some sense, I do tend to ramble.
Excellent analysis Greg X, I had not thought about all the elements presented forth with such subtlety, but I believe you are right. We all hate violence in some way, but praise it, and find it to be necessary at some point. I personally found the rape scene disturbing, especially when he chokes her to hold her down. But I believe the original “family” they thought they had, was not real, as part of Tom’s existence formed that family, and was hidden as we later discovered as this “Joey” character. I feel Tom was restraining his personality in some way, and that made the basis of interaction with his family function in a certain way, which may have been damaging to his son, who did not have the courage to stand up for himself. When Tom kills those men in the bar, his son sees a side of his dad and himself he had never seen before, and therefore his perception changes. This certainly might imply that his son was also restraining his personality in some way.
In the end, I think, the story is about how violence plays many key roles in life and how hard it is to start over when you cross that thin line and people shit their pants.
jimmymarkum
This film for all praises received didn’t seem to me to add anything that could be descrbed as groundbreaking/innovative;
maybe that is one of the reason to have the word ‘history’ in the title
Aside from that, and what this film is really meant to be, could it represents also a homage to an actor, Charles Bronson
If you consider:
- the word mentioned before: History, that points to the italian word “Storia” , a storia is a fairy-tale but also always starts with the word “C’ Era Una Volta”
- the vigilante-style component of the violence in the film
- a film starring Viggo Mortensen: The Indian Runner, with Bronson as actor in a supporting role
- the similarity between the main character in History and that of a novel by R Matheson titled “Ride The Nightmare” that inspired a film titled “Cold Sweat” in which the main character was given to …. Charles Bronson