Anyone seen A History Of Violence?

[tastebud]

When the movie/film ended no body moved, do you know why?

i have to say that people in the ritzy got up pretty quickly and looked a bit pissed off with the whole thing.

IMO, If you take films like HoV literally, (a) you're missing the point, and (b) it's like complaining that Jerry couldn't have beaten Tom that badly without the latter dying from a brain tumor induced by repeated abuse with a frying pan.

no i have to say i do agree with you there. it *was* typically unrealistic but i don't think the point is to discuss how realistic it was. i went to see it as i had read 'the moral of the story' type reviews and that is what attracted me to the film. i just thought that the morals didn't communicate anything more than a really basic point and weren't communicated with any conviction. on top of that i had read that it was an 'extremely shocking film' 'not for the faint hearted' and certainly didn't feel this at any point during the film.

Chocolate box depiction of perfect American family went on for far too long and made me v. bored.

i think this got my goat very early on (a particularly annoying couple) and may have clouded my subsequent judgment of the film as a whole.

 

[Dubversion]

well we're going tonight and i'm looking forward to it.
will report back tomorrow

we made it as far as the pub

 

[tastebud]

we made it as far as the pub

damn you! i wanted to know what you thought.

 

[London_Calling]

no i have to say i do agree with you there. it *was* typically unrealistic but i don't think the point is to discuss how realistic it was. i went to see it as i had read 'the moral of the story' type reviews and that is what attracted me to the film.
i just thought that the morals didn't communicate anything more than a really basic point and weren't communicated with any conviction.

I thought the 'morality' was one of the most interstig points of HoV. Seemed to me the morality tale here was that, in modern USA, violence is the answer; whether at school, at home (the sex), at work, on the street - violence solves the problems and it's acceptable to the community.

But perhaps the film is most interesting for the variety of reactions to it.



Btw, does anyone remember where Cronenberg borrowed that scene where Tom walks down to the lake at hs brothers house in the early morning light (new dawn, washing off the past, etc) ?

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

Btw, does anyone remember where Cronenberg borrowed that scene where Tom walks down to the lake at hs brothers house in the early morning light (new dawn, washing off the past, etc) ?

No I don't but now you bring it up, it'll bug me all day

As to other comments, i find that if I have to start making excuses or looking for reasons that aren't questioning previously held assumptions but are necessary just to maintain a handle on the plot unfolding, then I lose interest, innit. The events just didn't seem credible to me, and as I'd read all about this being Cronenburg's most accessible film, made for a mainstream audience etc, I have to say I was really disappointed with just how shallow I found it all. It hasn't questioned any of my assumptions at all, it hasn't enlightened me at all about attitudes to violence, it just made me feel vaguely bored.

Don't really see comparison of HoV with T&J as relevant, latter is cartoon therefore contains cartoon violence, this is supposed to be a credible USA community and I still hold that in looking at violence and reactions to it within enclosed communities, Blue Velvet (or even something like Deliverance) examines such issues in a much more compelling and credible manner - they still contained images and issues that couldn't or shouldn't be taken as literal interpretations of situations but that didn't matter cos you were swept along with what was happening in front of you, rather than being (in my case) feeling slightly underchanged by it all.

 

[redsquirrel]

this is supposed to be a credible USA community

No it's not. That's specifically not what Cronenburg intended or IMO delivered.

 

[tastebud]

I was really disappointed with just how shallow I found it all. It hasn't questioned any of my assumptions at all, it hasn't enlightened me at all about attitudes to violence, it just made me feel vaguely bored.

and THAT is all you need to know folks.

completely how i felt about the whole thing.

 

[Col_Buendia]

<snip> The events just didn't seem credible to me <snip>

This seems to be the nub of the debate, imo. Reactions fall on either side of the parable... For me, the film itself didn't seem to hold up under the weight of the analogy that Cronenberg was seeking to make. Although it didn't collapse entirely either... I seem strangely able to identify with all the responses on this thread.

 

[Leica]

a completely gratuitous full frontal

It does serve a purpose, it is a repetition/variation of an earlier scene.

I think you are missing at least two points about the film --

(a) there is a conflict between two sides of the main character, underlined by the fact that he sometimes talks of himself as being "a different person now". The presence of two similar scenes of the wife coming out of the bathroom in front of him is one of several indications of the conflict. In the first, she comes out in a cheerleader skirt impersonating a teenager ("we didn't know each other when we were teenagers" were her words in the car when she dropped him off that morning), and they have sex. In the second, she is naked and without any doubt an adult woman (they have just had sex) but she is no longer accessible to him and he sleeps in the sofa. The two scenes mark the transition from Tom to Joey.

(b) The son does not go "from verbally clever wimp being bullied (yawn) to gun wielding death merchant in short space of time". It is clear that the son is strong and can be aggressive in reply but in the first scene (after the game) he chooses not to, and decides to resolve the situation with a joke instead. It is only after he witnesses the change in his father (not a change into someone new but emergence of his former self) that the son decides to reveal his suppressed side. In this sense, the son is a reflection of the father.

 

[Dubversion]

finally saw this yesterday and thought it was a very flawed but nonetheless interesting and worthwhile movie.. Cronenberg (to me) didn't quite seem to know what to do with the conflict once he'd created it, but the set-up and the characterisation was excellent... i just think that by having such a full-scale ending, it lost some of the power it had built up and lost some of the ideas along the way..

at first i thought it had a lot of echoes of Straw Dogs as well, but that became less of an issue.

so all in all i'm very glad i saw it, and think Cronenberg has made another good but imperfect movie.

 

[Pie 1]

Just got back from seeing it and thought it a beautifully made film with some genuinely excellent performances.

I kind of know what Dub means though, about Cronenberg not knowing quite what to do with the conflict.

Overall a very worthwhile film.

 

[muser]

history of violence

really? gosh. i thought it illustrated the most obvious basic boring shite. wow! a school kid finally loses patience with a bully. wow! a man shoots people in order to protect himself and his staff from death. wow! a woman wants to shag her husband on the stairs after a big trauma.
utter utter rubbish! pretty hollywood crap!

man has a secret history of violence. film thinks it is portraying violence in new and unique never explored before ways. simple.. but crap and untrue.
yes! i concur.

totally got all of that (that's why i went to see it) but i just think it was communicated in a really dull, obvious, badly acted way.

Vixen you have got it wrong, to all those thinking about watching it and have a degree of imagination, then please read london calling review as I feel it accurately reflects what you're about to see.

 

[muser]

It does serve a purpose, it is a repetition/variation of an earlier scene.

I think you are missing at least two points about the film --

(a) there is a conflict between two sides of the main character, underlined by the fact that he sometimes talks of himself as being "a different person now". The presence of two similar scenes of the wife coming out of the bathroom in front of him is one of several indications of the conflict. In the first, she comes out in a cheerleader skirt impersonating a teenager ("we didn't know each other when we were teenagers" were her words in the car when she dropped him off that morning), and they have sex. In the second, she is naked and without any doubt an adult woman (they have just had sex) but she is no longer accessible to him and he sleeps in the sofa. The two scenes mark the transition from Tom to Joey.

(b) The son does not go "from verbally clever wimp being bullied (yawn) to gun wielding death merchant in short space of time". It is clear that the son is strong and can be aggressive in reply but in the first scene (after the game) he chooses not to, and decides to resolve the situation with a joke instead. It is only after he witnesses the change in his father (not a change into someone new but emergence of his former self) that the son decides to reveal his suppressed side. In this sense, the son is a reflection of the father.

leica, extremely well written and interesting dialogue about the film. I've been reading through the thread and london calling and yourself have made quite an impression.

 

[London_Calling]

I kind of know what Dub means though, about Cronenberg not knowing quite what to do with the conflict.

Just one view . . . the conflict remains intentionally unresolved, just as the issue itself remains unresolved within the society; it's a schizophrenic society that embodies and celebrates both family values and violence, patic gun violence, equally. The two live side-by-side

As they continue to do in the psychotic-schizophrenic Tom, while the mothers learn to live with it, and the sons learn to embrace it. Maybe.

I never did figure out the perfect daughter, though.

 

[London_Calling]

oh, and cheers, muser.

 

[Leica]

Cronenberg (to me) didn't quite seem to know what to do with the conflict once he'd created it . . . . i just think that by having such a full-scale ending, it lost some of the power it had built up and lost some of the ideas along the way..

Although it seems natural to seek a solution for every conflict, in reality a solution is not always necessary. Sometimes it is sufficient to just point out that contradictions exist, in every level, in every area.

As for the ending, there are some similarities with his immediately previous film, Spider. In both films there seems to be a past time and a present time, and the question is what connects past and present. In both, the past continues to live in the present (Spider looks at the housekeeper and sees his mother). In Spider the question is answered right at the end, but violence in the present tense is averted when violence in the past finally emerges in Spider's conscience and, therefore, in front of the viewers. In other words, the ending in Spider is the answer to the question "what connects past and present". In History of Violence the violence erupts in the present of the film. The ending also confirms a connection between past and present. In this sense, the title is ambivalent. Violence is not history, it is present.

For these and other reasons I've not mentioned, I think the film is complete.

I didn't think I would be writing in defense of Cronenberg because I was not a fan of his other films, but Spider was unexpectedly very good and now this one is good too.

The fact that many people here and elsewhere were disappointed that the film didn't meet their expectations shows perhaps that it drifts quite a way off the mainstream.

(muser, thanks for taking the time to read)

 

[Dr. Furface]

In History of Violence the violence erupts in the present of the film. The ending also confirms a connection between past and present. In this sense, the title is ambivalent. Violence is not history, it is present.

Yes and no. The title for me implies the history of violence of the father, yes, but more importantly, the idea that the father's propensity for violence is passed on to the son as a genetic trait - borne out by the kid's exaggerated transition from wimp to brute, about as subtle as Popeye eating his tin of spinach and beating the crap out of Brutus. Personally I found this 'message' biologically/behaviourally suspect, as well as the other underlying theme that, as the saying goes, "leopards can't change their spots", both of which are depressingly negative observations about the human condition. Apart from that, I actually enjoyed the film, though I could've done without William Hurt's pathetic attempt at stealing the show at the end, which completely ruined the tone of it.

 

[redsquirrel]

Yas well as the other underlying theme that, as the saying goes, "leopards can't change their spots", both of which are depressingly negative observations about the human condition.

What you really got this from it? I totally disagree, Tom might be capable of extreme violence but he's definately a different person. He loves his wife and kids and doesn't use violence until he has to, something that from what we know of Joey certainly wasn't true.

 

[London_Calling]

Whoa, I didn't get any of that "genetic" vibe, either.

The son changes - snaps, in fact - because of the way he's treated by elements in 'his' society; external influences cause him to defend himself physically (having tried and failed with humour), albeit after he's seen the way his father defends their home, with his (the sons) help.

For both father and son, the violent society comes to them, and they both respond in kind. It's 'society', man.

 

[Echo Base]

I thought Viggo was EXTRAORDINARILY GOOD in this.
Thinking back to the scene in the Diner, when Ed Harris and the goons walk in, I was CONVINCED that they had got the wrong man. And that was thanks to Viggo's performance. He MUST be an Oscar contender.

This is a seriously beautiful film, BTW. Just superbly shot and lit.

 

[Dr. Furface]

Whoa, I didn't get any of that "genetic" vibe, either.

The son changes - snaps, in fact - because of the way he's treated by elements in 'his' society; external influences cause him to defend himself physically (having tried and failed with humour), albeit after he's seen the way his father defends their home, with his (the sons) help.

For both father and son, the violent society comes to them, and they both respond in kind. It's 'society', man.

Well I thought the genetic message was glaringly obvious. The father has renounced his violent past and the son's passive nature is therefore consistent with a genteel upbringing. Yes, it's bullying that causes the son to 'change', but his new found gutsiness and fighting ability isn't consistent with what we might reasonably expect of him from what we know of his past, so the inference is that he didn't learn that behaviour, that it was a natural trait/talent which was lying dormant, and that he inherited it from his father. His later disgust with his father is the realisation that he now sees his father's dark side within himself, which is in conflict with his previous self-image.

 

[London_Calling]

I really, really don't think Cronenburg is talking about genetics at all - see my earlier posts about schizophrenic nature of the society and the lead character.

If you want to talk about 'History' being a clue, then I'd point not to the fathers past, but to the violent way the society was created, the hero-worship of icons like John Wayne, and the role of guns in that history - that's why, imo, the piece is littered with genre references.

But hey, if you read that into the piece, it's just as valid.

 

[chegrimandi]

this film is alright - nothing more nothing less. Enjoyed it ok but didn't wet my pants with enthusiasm either - yes I do normally do that....

 

[D'wards]

I thought it was great - 8/10 i would give it.

I thought Cronenberg was saying that the son has inherited his dad's violence. And the fact that he is very good at it.

 

[Pie 1]

This is a seriously beautiful film, BTW. Just superbly shot and lit.

IMO, one of the best for a long time on this front.

 

[chico enrico]

ain't gonna bother reading my thread. saw it last night. utter, total, unremitting SHIT! quite literally thee worst film i have seen fo many many years. basically it is just like one of those shit made for tv movies you get on channel 5 at about two in the morning. avoid at all costs.

 

[tastebud]

ain't gonna bother reading the thread. saw it last night. utter, total, unremitting SHIT! quite literally the worst film i have seen for many many years. basically it is just like one of those shit made for tv movies you get on channel 5 at about two in the morning. avoid at all costs.

yes.

 

[London_Calling]

Some more ideas to play with , if the film is still on your mind.

 

[tastebud]

http://ter.air0day.com/?script=historyofviolence

ohyesohyesohyes!

(that made me very very happy!)

 

[Grandma Death]

A fairly enjoyable flawed movie I thought. Not bad acting but hardly the gripping pyschological thriller I was expecting.