A History Of Violence

Tonight I saw “A History Of Violence” and I’m very conflicted by it. It was a good movie, one I would recommend, but not one that I especially liked. (I don’t really think this is going to spoil the movie for you any more than aany other review or even the trailer, but stop reading if you want to see it and don’t want to even have an idea of what is coming.)

I think it’s an important movie. Not just because it’s likely to get all kind of award nominations, but because this is a movie that asks truly difficult questions. Oddly, most of the really interesting questions posed in the movie aren’t about violence, so much as they are about self: Who are you as a person? How much of your past defines who you are today? Can you walk away from your past and what is the price to pay if it catches up with you? Are we to be defined based on the best version of ourselves or the worst? Somewhere in between? This is the kind of movie I can imagine being shown in college level classes and discussed at great length thereafter. It’s not the kind of conversation you’re likely to have on the way home with your companion after watching the movie (I wouldn’t know – I went alone), but I imagine you’ll both be thinking these questions.

Still, it’s a flawed film, I think. David Cronenberg directs and his focus is on violence as a concept – which is a problem for me, both because I think there are more interesting question in the movie (above) that he ignores, but also because Cronenberg’s movie is hypocritical. This is a dark movie that takes on violence in a serious way – it doesn’t want to be an action movie. That would be exploitive and this film seems desperately to want us to understand that violence is destructive and evil and very much to be avoided. And yet.

And yet I’m not sure if I have never seen a movie that made me feel quite so much like I was watching pornography. I’m not only referring to two sex scenes the movie offers us – both of which are overlong and awkwardly voyeuristic in the way they linger long after we want to look away – I’m also talking about the scenes of violence, which are very bit as voyeuristic as the sex. No one gets shot or hurt in this movie without bleeding, or losing bits of flesh. I can’t even remember how many heads I saw with brains leaking out, how many noses broken, how much blood splattered on clothing. Cronenberg lingers on each act of violence in a way that is both disgusting but also oddly excited. It’s unneeded, and it’s presence is what gave me the feeling of hypocrisy. It was like someone giving a lecture on the horrors of gunplay but then eagerly wanting to show you pictures of how horrible it is.

I’m guessing Cronenberg wanted it to be over the top because he wants the movie to be described as unflinching. He wants to show us dirty sex and dirty violence and so gain credibility with us in thinking that he’s not fooling around. But we know he’s not fooling. It’s a serious movie, and I don’t need to see oral sex or splattered brains to know it. The camera doesn’t flinch in this movie, true – instead, Cronenberg makes the audience flinch. I think it’s a mistake.

Lest you think I’m coming down harsh on the movie, let me mention that most of the aactingg was really good. Viggo Mortensen is excellent. Maria Bello as his wife is awesome. Ed Harris is scary, in a good way. William Hurt shows up and absolutely cements his place as my favorite actor, period. He’s just the man. I’ve never seen him in a roll like this, but he completely sells it. And he continues to have the coolest speaking voice ever. (The kids are not so good, really, but maybe the lines they get are at fault. Whoever wrote the movie doesn’t have much of an ear for the way kids speak or interact with their parents.)

So, yeah. Thumbs up, but I’m not sure I’d want to see it again.