"History of Violence" -- anyone else on the fence?

[Auggie27]

Posted: 1/13/06 at 9:14pm

Every now and then, I simply cannot decide how I feel about a film, play, or book. Such is the case with Cronnenberg's "History of Violence," which I avoided all fall, probably from one sequence I saw in a trailer, which disturbed me. Finally caught up with it to finish my end-of-year film viewing. I am torn.


I came away wildly impressed with two performances -- the extraorindarily intense, focussed work of Maria Bello, and the un-Hurt William Hurt turn (brilliant against type casting--a lesson for all actors). But had the VILLAGE VOICE not told me it was their first choice for the year, I'm not sure I'd "see" what the widespread appreciation of the film's artistic merit sees. From the ugly opening sequence on, there were so many moments when I had to look away -- not my usual iron-stomach MO -- I found myself wondering why. As for visceral response, except for the son's retaliatory behavior at school, I was curiously removed from the emotional weight of the film, finding it hard to empathize with the lead character's plight as the film inched toward its admittedly powerful, quiet denouement.

Updated On: 1/13/06 at 09:14 PM

[MyNameInLights]

Posted: 1/13/06 at 9:54pm

I'm definitely on the fence about this film, and I'm happy to know I'm not the only one. Don't get me wrong, the performances were absolutely extraordinary, but the violence and the sex were a little bit too much for me. I am not usually bothered by these sort of things, but the sheer graphic nature of it all just really bothered me. I don't know, maybe it's for the best, seeing as it really stuck with me. I'll be interested to see what happens once Oscars roll around.

[Plum]

Posted: 1/13/06 at 10:43pm

I thought this was a very idea-driven film; the concepts were more important than the people, and it showed. So even though the actors generally did a fine job, the writing just wouldn't let them develop into people rather than objects being used in service of a thesis. The ideas tackled were interesting and dealt with in an interesting way, but I guess I like my plot to serve character rather than vice-versa. So for me, A History of Violence is a well-made, interesting film that falls short in the empathy department.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 1/13/06 at 10:49pm

I found it to be a very entertaining and suspenseful film. I thought the performances were excellent. I can completely understand why it is on many Top 10 lists and was raved about when it opened.

But, this has been a year loaded with love or hate it (or on the fence) films:

A History of Violence
Crash
Brokeback Mountain
King Kong
Good Night, And Good Luck
Memoirs of a Geisha

and many more

[Auggie27]

Posted: 1/13/06 at 11:29pm

Plum landed on something I hadn't considered, but really speaks to me. How the film is built around an intellectual construct that isn't (entirely) satisfyingly dramatized in terms of character and motivation. Leaving out the holes in the story -- and there are many, as the backstory comes freighted with unexplained details that we're expected to simply overlook -- it just felt contrived. (Ed Harris's character behaves as if in a real-world vacuum. Wouldn't anyone in organized crime be ... more clever? The way he baldly confronts in this small town -- He was a bull in a china shop, repeatedly.)

Critically, I kept waiting to feel more than I was feeling. Only the final shots really have emotional access. I found myself baffled by its excesses -- why, for instance, do we begin with a long sequence devoted to two thugs, whose MO really is a random detail? Yes, yes, I understand: to establish a sense of random violence in the culture. But in a 98 minute film, it's a waste of valuable screen time. As Plum opines, ideas drive it, sometimes captivatingly, but aren't fully translated into organic storytelling. Still, I can't fault any of the actors, who bring flesh and blood and even heart to proceedings that are too often just about blood. Especially Bello. This is her breakthruough role, reason enough to appreciate the film.

[Lamc16]

Posted: 1/13/06 at 11:57pm

I am definitely on the fence about this one. I went into it wanting to love it mostly because of all the buzz surrounding it. I ultimately could not force myself to completely go with it. I completely agree, however, that the undisputed stand out of the film is William Hurt. He blew me away! I have seen my fair share of Hurt performances (another stand out would be Macon in "The Accidental Tourist"), but this one stands--and will continue to stand--as one of his greatest screen performances. I cannot say enough about him in this film. He will be ROBBED this year if he does not get the Oscar for supporting actor.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 1/13/06 at 11:59pm

I comepletely agree.

I thought it was a completely wonderful movie that took lots of people by surprise - I expected it to be a typical, overrated action/thriller. While I'm not crazy about certain things in the film - the performances (mainly that of the unbelieveably underrated Maria Bello), are just completely solid and wonderful.

It's not one of the best films of the year for me - but it's certainly up there.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 1/14/06 at 12:19am

I have to say, and I am not just being, you know, me when I write this, (although I am always me), but this part:

"How the film is built around an intellectual construct that isn't (entirely) satisfyingly dramatized in terms of character and motivation..."

... is exactly how I felt about Brokeback Mountain. Annie Proulx, Larry McMurty and Ang Lee's ideas of what sex between closeted men is like and Proulx's concept of love between men are all supposedly there but without satisfying character development and no actual onscreen motivation, near as I could see. And little or no bearing in reality.

Of the Cronenberg films I have seen, Rabid, Scanners, Videodrome, Dead Ringers, Crash, and A History of Violence, I have to say I have never particularly cared about the characters. In fact, I can't really say I'm particularly a "fan" of his work. But somehow, I wound up seeing all of those movies of his. "A History..." I saw because I found myself at a remote action pictured filled multiplex and it was the only movie I was slightly interested in and I just wanted to be in a movie theater and forget my troubles of that particular day.

I expect digressions in Cronenberg movies, and usually gross ones. So that didn't surprise me. The character of Viggo's wife is the first one I ever genuinely cared about in his films. I LOVED the dramatization of the eroticism of violence and it's spill-over into sex (a TOTAL failure of Lee's in Brokeback Mountain), but I didn't particularly think of it as reality based.

I thought of A History of Violence as an allegory. Which is also the way I ended up thinking of Brokeback Mountain, because that ONLY works in terms of an allegory. The failure of the latter, for me, is that it didn't stay with me at all except for the hour I talked about how much it didn't work for me with my friend.

I was surprised to find "A History" was still with me a week or more after I saw it.

By that measure, for me, it was a success. And I tend to hold movies that stick with me in higher regard than one that's gone like a puff of smoke.

[Plum]

Posted: 1/14/06 at 12:20am

Oh, I'm not saying I didn't like it. I found it, as I said, terribly interesting. But it didn't completely come together for me.

Another thing- I didn't expect to think this, but the two sex scenes really did mean something to the story.

And yes, Maria Bello was totally fantastic.

[Plum]

Posted: 1/14/06 at 12:22am

Wow, I agree with Namo. :P

I also thought Brokeback Mountain was too formal most of the time, and especially that Heath Ledger was playing a "cowboy" rather than a cowboy.

But please let's not make this another BBM thread.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 1/14/06 at 12:26am

That wasn't my intent, which is why I sandwiched my references as a compare and contrast between two longer sections about Cronenberg and his latest movie.

I also thought it was great the way he kept his clinical camera on the sex scenes the way he usually does, you know, a fingernail falling off or whatever.

[Plum]

Posted: 1/14/06 at 12:32am

Oh, I didn't think you were trying to threadjack. I was just afraid that by replying to the BBM part of your post, I might turn the topic to everybody's favorite gay cowboys.

Was anybody else a little bit freaked out by the girl who played Mortensen's daughter? Her hair color was so bright I thought it was radioactive.

[broadway86]

Posted: 1/14/06 at 12:34am

Loved it, and I thought that Bello, Hurt, and Mortensen were excellent.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 1/14/06 at 12:35am

What's with all this William Hurt buzz? I thought he was fine and exactly what he needed to be, but nothing other than ordinary. He was barely in the damn movie!

[TheEnchantedHunter]

Posted: 1/14/06 at 12:50am

Oh, but Hurt's tour-de-force was one of the wittiest, slyest and hilariously terrifying performances on celluloid this year!

The movie's design and meaning are inextricably linked and are essentially very simple. By having the movie's plot spin out exponentially from the initial encounter at the diner, Cronenberg suggests that even a single act of violence not only has roots that go deep but has far-reaching consequences that can effect innocent lives.

Perry Smith
Hutchinson, Kansas

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 1/14/06 at 12:51am

Like a good allegory would!

[broadway86]

Posted: 1/14/06 at 12:56am

There are two scenes I want to bring up (possible spoilers!)...

1. The diner shootout. Had Tom Stall really been who he said he was, he would have died in the diner. Wouldn't you agree?

2. The stairway scene. On one side, Edie is repulsed by discovering that her beloved husband once killed people on a regular basis (and, according to legend, was quite good at it). On the other, she still can't resist her attraction to him. Bello is brilliant in this scene, because she makes this contradiciton clear and intense.

Oh, but Hurt's tour-de-force was one of the wittiest, slyest and hilariously terrifying performances on celluloid this year!

I agree. He also wins the award for the best line reading of the year: "How do you **** that up? How do you f*ck that up?!?!"

[Roscoe]

Posted: 1/14/06 at 9:04am

I found History of Violence to be a fascinating and disturbing film, easily one of the best of the year.

I seem to be alone in finding William Hurt's "performance" to be the film's weakest element, the clearest imaginable example of casting-against-type gone hideously, horribly wrong. I'm supposed to believe that I am watching a person, not an actor playing a character, or worse, an actor not known for versatility showing off by trying to flex muscles he doesn't really have.

[popcultureboy]

Posted: 1/14/06 at 9:08am

You're not alone Roscoe. I didn't really like the film, it didn't work for me on any level particularly (save the wordless brilliant ending). William Hurt's performance is an absolute hammy joke and I don't get why people think he's so great. He should have had his SAG card rescinded after The Village and his performance in this movie did nothing to alter my opinion.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 1/14/06 at 9:34am

24 hours later, still on that fence, still haunted, however.

I do agree with Namo about Bello's searing performance, and her character's intriguing, contradictory behavior. In fact, everything about the "born again" Viggo character's lifestyle in the small town was expertly drawn. The son's "B" story with the homophobic bully (cast against type with a Caravaggio-esque boy) is fascinating counterpoint that dovetails into the central narrative. But we are still forced to reconcile the plot -- and the movie's portrayal of organized crime, and the way it carries out its business, felt almost wildly inauthentic, despite admittedly brilliant work from the actors performing it.

I now find those particular holes more troubling, again, especially the Ed Harris character's oddly public behavior in this small town, where his coming/going is instantly, easily tracked by the Mayberry-ish Sheriff. I think he would be discreet, covert, careful, even in his rage (or he'd last 15 minutes with Hurt's character). Yet he and his goons behave like the least experienced low-rent thugs who provoke ridicule on SOPRANOS. The big violent encounter on the lawn felt shoe-horned in, and not plausable. Nor did its ramifications make any sense. The Sheriff is always holding his hat, saying "this doesn't quite add up." In a world where info on anyone is available via the internet, etc, it strained credibility. The convenient stupidity of law enforcement, and the omnipotence of the criminals, didn't help me suspend disbelief. To me, you have to buy into it's headlong pull, and almost ignore the specifics, rather like Greek tragedy, which is how I've described it.

Updated On: 1/14/06 at 09:34 AM

[Roscoe]

Posted: 1/14/06 at 9:41am

I found it rather hard to believe that the media that had been all over Mortensen's character when he single-handedly defended himself from criminals at the diner wouldn't have been even more all over him when even more criminals descended on him at his own home.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 1/14/06 at 10:05am

SPOILER. The media's behavior matched law enforcement's: serve the story's momentary needs, and not the reality check of an overall plausable universe. Once violence begins its new reign, the movie's portrayal of total small town isolation -- again, in an era of instant connections -- felt naggingly retro. In 50's America, perhaps, you might see such behavior in a vacuum. Now? Once the bodies of Harris and company are hauled away, their ties to an East Coast mob were mirculously un-excavated by anyone. I just couldn't believe that. It was a two-horse town, yet the hospital was sophisticated.

Every plot has holes and implausabilities -- plots are, by nature, "contrived." It's a question of how much we suspend disbelief -- which is an entirely subjective thing, varying from movie to movie, person to person watching. (Not to BBM this thread either -- but several people can't get past the fact that Ennis and Jack don't fish, since they'd have to eat something on their trips. And they are outdoorsmen, not accountants pretending to be cowboys. I just assumed they didn't want to spend the time, but it's valid point).

[Roscoe]

Posted: 1/14/06 at 10:55am

Right, Auggie. I felt that the lack of media attention after the events at the house was a minor hole in the film, not a deal-breaker. I was far more disturbed by Hurt's atrocious overplaying.

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 1/14/06 at 11:08am

I am definitely "on the fence." The thing nobody has mentioned is that the film is based on a "graphic novel." Sometimes known as a COMIC BOOK. The characters are stock, the camera angles are very interesting, but in the end it is a simple allegory.
I found the lead performances very strong and were able to stand up against Cronnenberg's style. Bello, in particular was mesmerizing. Where did this performance come from?
But I have to say I found the work of Hurt and Harris to belong in another film entirely. Dick Tracy II, perhaps? Over the top, entertainingly so, but just a tad too hammy for this otherwise subtly acted ensemble.
I am glad that I was aware of the source material before I went in. It gave me the information I needed to open myself up to what might have seemed like some silly and overly graphic scenes.

[Plum]

Posted: 1/14/06 at 11:27am

Hey, don't diss graphic novels. Ghost World and Road to Perdition came from graphic novels, too. And that's not even getting into masterpieces like Maus, Watchmen, and the Pulitzer-winning The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay. Graphic novels are perfectly capable of deep characterization and thought processes- the Sandman series, though it's a collection rather than a true graphic novel, comes to mind as well.