A History of Violence
directed by David Cronenberg
screenplay by Josh Olson
based on the graphic novel by John Wagner and Vince Locke
David Cronenberg has made so many movies about duplicity that I’m surprised he hasn’t yet been recruited for the current superhero trend. Perhaps he can direct a Batman Begins sequel where the villain is Two-face, or I hear that Ant-Man is currently in need. At least now the Canadian filmmaker is on the right track with A History of Violence, his most commercial film yet and one based on a graphic novel, which is only half a step above comic books.
If you’re like me and never cared much for his films, you should be surprised at how enjoyable this new one is. Some have compared it to David Lynch and the Coen brothers, and I doubt that I will concur more with other critics this year. Not that I never associate Cronenberg with Lynch. Usually I consider them the two most overrated filmmakers working today. They both also deliver weird, inaccessible movies, though the confusion felt while watching Lynch often leads to an absorbing curiosity whereas Cronenberg’s strangeness is more creepy and uncomfortable. The Coens are typically too amusing to compare. Maybe I laughed during Naked Lunch, but only because it caught me so off guard.
The prologue for A History of Violence introduces two homicidal drifters that could easily continue their journey into the world of Mulholland Dr. or Raising Arizona if they weren’t to meet their demise in the small town of Millbrook, Indiana, home of Tom Stall (Viggo Mortensen) and his wholesome midwestern family (Maria Bello; Ashton Holmes; Heidi Hayes). It is Stall who kills them while defending his diner from being held up, his quick, skilled actions so intrinsic that you might wonder if he’s an amnesiac super-soldier. His background becomes more of a mystery after his heroics receive national attention and a few gangsters (including Ed Harris) arrive claiming that he is Joey Cusack, an associate of theirs who went missing twenty years prior.
It doesn’t matter if Stall is Cusack or a super-soldier or a secret agent. What matters is how capable he is of committing the severity, even in self-defense. The prologue sets up just how evil the two drifters are to ensure the necessity of Stall’s terminal response, and what transpires with the relentless mobsters is further argument for desperate measures. While some might see political undertones or even the commonplace of yet another vengeance piece for this wrathful decade, the movie is far more timeless and it brings up far too many ideas to be disrespectfully pinpointed that way. Combining the marital deception of Mr. and Mrs. Smith, the identity crisis of Batman Begins and the survival compulsion of War of the Worlds, A History of Violence is the best non-summer action movie and makes the transition from blockbuster season to Oscar time (not that I believe this to be award-worthy) a smooth passage.
If there were a statue for casting, though, this would be a shoo-in. Mortensen is perfectly believable as the innocent, rural patriarch or the alleged professional as is Bello taken equally for painfully ordinary or exceptionally sexy. And as the son, Holmes is the perfect median between geek and heartthrob, the type that gets picked on but still has a cute girlfriend. Plus, who would have known that William Hurt could be such a hilarious badass in the mob boss role? His performance is so exciting that, even though it’s almost out of place within the tone of the film (his is the most Coen-esque of all), I’m willing to finally forgive him for Lost in Space, among other duds of his last twenty years.
Loyal Cronenberg fans may find the movie less cult-worthy for their tastes but could probably do with something above ground for a change. After Spider, I’d have settled for something as quirky as eXistenZ, myself. Instead Cronenberg was given a bigger budget than normal and still kept things interesting. So far every indie filmmaker turned superhero director has been made a disappointment, obviously giving into too much bureaucratic decisions. Yes, even Christopher Nolan. After seeing A History of Violence, I await Cronenberg’s eventual attempt as long as he sticks to this new style that works so well.
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
1 - Shark
This is by far the best film of the year.
NOTE:
the original graphic novel was terrible; and screenwriter Josh Olson took the basic premise and improved it 110%.
The grapic novel constitutes about the first 20 minutes of the film -- the balance is a brilliant, twisting-turning story that delivers on all levels.
Oscar material, especially for screenwriter Olson and actor Bello.
Don't miss it; opens widely this coming Friday.
2 - Shark
Opens today everywhere. GO SEE IT!
3 - Temple Stark
This was chosen as an Editor's Pick this week by your humble Video / TV Editor Joan Hunt. Go HERE to find out why and grab a nifty graphic button to put on your own site.
4 - Shark
Great movie; I saw it twice this weekend; the theater was packed, the audience loved it, and I'm surprised there aren't more comments on this thread.
5 - Natalie Davis
Goddess, what an excellent piece of cinema... Saw it earlier today... still wondering what was showing in Maria Bello's eyes when she finally raised her face to look at her spouse. Her work was amazing; you could see on her face her contradictory reactions to her mate's newly discovered talents. And Viggo Mortensen was so believable as two-two-two men in one. I would like to see both actors win nominations for their roles (although Viggo would not be interested in anything remotely Oscar-related, which is more reason to admire him).
William Hurt, a longtime favorite of mine, didn't excite me. His portrayal of Richie was a hoot -- indeed he would have been great in a Lynch film -- but his cameo struck me as being ill-fitting for this offering.
Haven't been able to see many films this year, but A History of Violence, even with its flaws, is the best of those I have seen -- and a great reminder that violence begets only violence.
6 - Shark
Natalie, great observations.
I think Maria Bello and Viggo should both get Oscars, but their work is so subtle and understated that I doubt they'll even be nominated.
--- SPOILER ALERT ---
*
*
*
*
Natalie,
re: the final scene:
Jeesus, I think it's one of the most powerful scenes in recent film history -- and the symbolism is beautiful.
Of course, the innocent, non-judgemental "child" welcomes him home: the youngest by putting the plate on the table (although the utensils are BACKWARDS, showing that everything is not right); and the teenaged son responds positively by handing him the food.
I think the beauty of the final scene is that THERE IS NO definitive look in Bello's eyes.
They are in limbo. Where do they go from here? Is he one man or two? Which one is he -- really? And once 'violence' begats violence, how does it end? WILL IT END?
Who knows? Maria Bello darn sure doesn't.
Wow. What a masterpiece.
(After the film, wife and I were discussing Bello's face in that final scene, and the wife said, "whatever happens, you know that this family has some work to do..."
I thought that was pretty good.)
===
re. William Hurt -- I thought the guy was awesome; (ditto for Ed Harris!)
HURT only had about five minutes on screen, but he came across with a subtle, but powerful touch of insanity; his voice, mannerisms, body language, etc. were a total package that was incredibly ECONOMIC -- as a matter of fact, one reason I saw the movie a second time was to watch Hurt do his thing again -- and I must say, the second viewing only confirmed my impressions about his virtuosity.
btw: I'm trying not to exaggerate here, but I think Viggo's subtle FACE transformation in the front yard scene was one of the greatest moments in film history.
Seriously. Watch Viggo from the time he leaves the house till he hugs his son at the end of that scene: one of the greatest WORDLESS acting jobs in history.
BTW: I believe this film is MUCH deeper than a lot of people and critics are giving it credit for being.
=====
Oh, and I must add that this film is also VERY FUNNY: the first audience I saw it with "got it" most of the time; the second time I saw it, I think the audience was in shock most of the time and didn't catch many of the hilarious lines.
7 - Shark
* chirp chirp *
C'mon, anybody else seen this great film?!
8 - Shaun
Are you really that terrible a reviewer? That was the WORST movie I have seen since the Pallbearer with G. paltrow. I don't know HOW the critics got fooled on this one, but I laughed every 10 minutes and this was NO comedy! TERRIBLE!!!!!!