A History of Violence

An unfortunate case of the 'So What's?'

2005

Review: September 27, 2005

Director: David Cronenberg

Starring: Viggo Mortensen, Maria Bello, Ed Harris, William Hurt, Ashton Holmes

I wouldn't.

THE SETUP:

Guy kills two guys threatening people in his diner, which draws the attention of his old mob connections.

DISCUSSION:

I worship David Cronenberg. For his body of work and his skill, yes, but also for the way he has continued to evolve, so this was one of the movies I was most looking forward to this season. And while everything about it was absolutely top-notch. it just lacks whatever that thing is that makes you walk out feeling thankful that you just saw that movie.

Viggo Mortensen plays Tom Stall, a nice, mellow guy with a loving wife [Maria Bello] and two kids, who runs a diner in small Indiana town. One day two thugs come in and threaten to rape one of Tom's waitresses, and with startling efficiency Tom kills them both. He is considered a local hero in the press, which draws the attention of some unsavory people from his past, who come calling. And since Tom hasn't told his wife or kids or anyone in town about his past, this forces some uncomfortable questions.

All of the performances were good. Anyone who saw The Cooler knows that Maria Bello can act, as well as be sexy and beguiling, and she is in fine form here. Ed Harris is a powerful presence as always, but Ashton Holmes was the big surprise. He plays Tom's son, and comes off as genuinely intelligent, thoughtful, and carried away in some scenes. William Hurt delivers a delightfully menacing turn near the end.

The themes were intelligent and well-delivered. In one scene that takes place after the diner slaying, Tom's son Jack [Holmes], who has been tormented at school by a bully, turns on the bully with a surprising force. which is obviously a reaction he picked up from his father. This says more, in a more convincing [not to mention more brief] way, about the way in which violence is passed from generation to generation than the whole of Affliction.

There is also an excellent bit in which Tom lets slide a little bit of violence with his wife, which both repulses her and turns her on. The movie handles this very delicately in a way that seems very true to life. In fact, I admired the way that the entire movie treated sexuality in an adult way, and the texture and devotion of their entire relationship. The last shots of the movie are very good, and give a hint of what may be ahead for these characters.

The violence is quick and extreme, but is never treated as "cool" the way it is in other movies. For example, there is no music during the violent sequences. Compare this to violent sequences from The Matrix to Underworld to Ghost Ship, or almost any popular violent movie, in which the "awesome" soundtrack kicks in as the shotguns are being discharged, the slow-motion is employed, and the iconic postures are assumed. Here, the violence is quick and impressive, but music and slow-motion free. At dinner afterward my friend and I discussed whether this film would be a hit, and ultimately decided that it wouldn't, for the very reason that the violence here ISN'T fun. I personally don't understand the necessity of two close-ups of faces destroyed, but Cronenberg is no idiot and if he thinks they should be there, it's probably something I don't understand.

It's great, it's impressive, it all works. But in the end, so what? Why do I feel this way? Cronenberg's coolness throughout, necessary to take a critical distance on the violence, may have left me uninvolved in the story. though that's not true, because I was very involved in the personal story within the family. It may have been that I just couldn't care less about gangster movies, and this is much more of a gangster movie than the trailers would let on-though again I can't think that explains it all, as this is also much more than just a gangster movie.

Professional film critics are right to praise this movie, but keep in mind that their job is to either praise or disparage a movie, and one option that never comes into the conversation is that really, you know, you don't have to see a movie at all. If you HAD to see a movie, this one would definitely not waste your time, but the phrase that keeps coming into my mind about it is the dismissive colloquialism: "Eh, I could have lived without it."

SHOULD YOU WATCH IT?

You could do a lot worse, but I don't think it's strictly necessary. If you're big into gangster pics, however, this one would be a nice and interesting addition.