Tuesday, September 27, 2005
THE WEIGHT OF HISTORY
Saw A History of Violence at the River East on Saturday night. In attendance with me were Sniffian, and our favorite married couple, Emily and Austin.
Plot: Viggo Mortensen plays Tom Stall, the owner/manager of a diner in small town Indiana. Tom's got a beautiful wife (Maria Bello), two nice kids, a big house, and everyone just seems to like him. Life couldn't be better, right? Not so fast. Things take a turn for the worse when two "bad guys" show up at Tom's diner one night - hey, that's the name of that Suzanne Vega song, I've been to that diner! - and try to rob it. Tom springs into action like a Navy seal on crack and wastes the aforesaid good-for-nothin's. He becomes a local hero for his crime fighting, which has the unfortunate consequence of attracting the attention of Carl Fogarty (Ed Harris), a nasty piece of work with most of one eye missing. Fogarty shows up at the diner one day, claiming to know Tom and calling him "Joey." Needless to say, Tom doesn't fire back with a friendly, "How you doin'?"
So what's the deal? Has Fogarty got the wrong guy? Or does Tom know more about the mysterious "Joey" than he's letting on?
Spoiler alert! I'm now going to write about all the plot twists and turns, so if you'd rather not know, please check out now.
Okay, here we go. It turns out that Tom is, indeed, Joey Cusack, a former hitman for the Philadelphia mob. Tom admits to his previous identity to his wife while lying in a hospital bed after a deadly confrontation with Fogarty. Tired of a life of bloodshed, Cusack created the identity of Tom Stall and moved out to the heartland. (The details of this transformation are glossed over by the film.) Cusack's desire to become someone else was so strong that he eventually believed that he was Tom.
The first hour of A History of Violence is taut and suspenseful. We're never sure if Tom is telling the truth about himself and Mortensen does a good job of keeping us in the dark. He's ambiguous without seeming evasive. His confrontations with Harris have a nicely menacing cat and mouse quality. However, once we discover Tom's previous identity, the film loses direction. Tom travels to Philly, for a showdown with his brother (William Hurt), who appears to have sent Fogarty and his henchmen after Tom. (Hurt plays the brother as kind of a shrewd idiot, giving a performance that's so odd that it's either brilliant or awful, or both.) Without much preamble, Tom dispatches his brother and his goons like a Ninja assassin and goes back to his family.
Hmmm, so what's this all about? I think that Cronenberg is saying that the capacity for brutal violence lies within all of us, like a dormant virus, that we can never be rid off it, and that we are even attracted to it. Tom tries to destroy his previous identity as a hitman and almost pulls it off, but betrays himself in the diner when he kills the two would-be robbers; he just can't help offing them with stunning speed and efficiency. Once Tom's former self resurfaces everything starts to unravel. Tom's dorky son savagely beats the bully that had been tormenting him. His wife is furious with him when she learns of his previous identity, but in a very charged sex scene, we discover that she's turned on by scary, brutal Joey just as much as she is by nice, safe Tom.
Alright, so violence lurks inside all of us, so what? Is that good or bad? Forget good or bad. Does it mean anything? Is Cronenberg just saying that violence is a destructive force? That's not really news, is it? Or is it that no matter how hard we try we can never be free of violence? I think that ultimately Cronenberg may be saying that violence changes everything, that we can never go back to the way things were once an atrocity has been committed. That's more interesting than some of the other questions that I've just cited, but not by much. Of course violence changes everything, we all know that. What's interesting is how it changes things, what effects it has on people's lives. The film does document the impact that violence has on Tom and his family for its first hour, but unfortunately becomes more plot-oriented from there on. The scenes at Tom's brother's estate in Philly feel like they belong in another movie, probably one starring Steve Seagal. That's not so bad, but it's frustrating compared to what went before. What starts out as a thoughtful character study, ends as a typical Hollywood revenge flick. ¶ 7:41 AM
Plot: Viggo Mortensen plays Tom Stall, the owner/manager of a diner in small town Indiana. Tom's got a beautiful wife (Maria Bello), two nice kids, a big house, and everyone just seems to like him. Life couldn't be better, right? Not so fast. Things take a turn for the worse when two "bad guys" show up at Tom's diner one night - hey, that's the name of that Suzanne Vega song, I've been to that diner! - and try to rob it. Tom springs into action like a Navy seal on crack and wastes the aforesaid good-for-nothin's. He becomes a local hero for his crime fighting, which has the unfortunate consequence of attracting the attention of Carl Fogarty (Ed Harris), a nasty piece of work with most of one eye missing. Fogarty shows up at the diner one day, claiming to know Tom and calling him "Joey." Needless to say, Tom doesn't fire back with a friendly, "How you doin'?"
So what's the deal? Has Fogarty got the wrong guy? Or does Tom know more about the mysterious "Joey" than he's letting on?
Spoiler alert! I'm now going to write about all the plot twists and turns, so if you'd rather not know, please check out now.
Okay, here we go. It turns out that Tom is, indeed, Joey Cusack, a former hitman for the Philadelphia mob. Tom admits to his previous identity to his wife while lying in a hospital bed after a deadly confrontation with Fogarty. Tired of a life of bloodshed, Cusack created the identity of Tom Stall and moved out to the heartland. (The details of this transformation are glossed over by the film.) Cusack's desire to become someone else was so strong that he eventually believed that he was Tom.
The first hour of A History of Violence is taut and suspenseful. We're never sure if Tom is telling the truth about himself and Mortensen does a good job of keeping us in the dark. He's ambiguous without seeming evasive. His confrontations with Harris have a nicely menacing cat and mouse quality. However, once we discover Tom's previous identity, the film loses direction. Tom travels to Philly, for a showdown with his brother (William Hurt), who appears to have sent Fogarty and his henchmen after Tom. (Hurt plays the brother as kind of a shrewd idiot, giving a performance that's so odd that it's either brilliant or awful, or both.) Without much preamble, Tom dispatches his brother and his goons like a Ninja assassin and goes back to his family.
Hmmm, so what's this all about? I think that Cronenberg is saying that the capacity for brutal violence lies within all of us, like a dormant virus, that we can never be rid off it, and that we are even attracted to it. Tom tries to destroy his previous identity as a hitman and almost pulls it off, but betrays himself in the diner when he kills the two would-be robbers; he just can't help offing them with stunning speed and efficiency. Once Tom's former self resurfaces everything starts to unravel. Tom's dorky son savagely beats the bully that had been tormenting him. His wife is furious with him when she learns of his previous identity, but in a very charged sex scene, we discover that she's turned on by scary, brutal Joey just as much as she is by nice, safe Tom.
Alright, so violence lurks inside all of us, so what? Is that good or bad? Forget good or bad. Does it mean anything? Is Cronenberg just saying that violence is a destructive force? That's not really news, is it? Or is it that no matter how hard we try we can never be free of violence? I think that ultimately Cronenberg may be saying that violence changes everything, that we can never go back to the way things were once an atrocity has been committed. That's more interesting than some of the other questions that I've just cited, but not by much. Of course violence changes everything, we all know that. What's interesting is how it changes things, what effects it has on people's lives. The film does document the impact that violence has on Tom and his family for its first hour, but unfortunately becomes more plot-oriented from there on. The scenes at Tom's brother's estate in Philly feel like they belong in another movie, probably one starring Steve Seagal. That's not so bad, but it's frustrating compared to what went before. What starts out as a thoughtful character study, ends as a typical Hollywood revenge flick. ¶ 7:41 AM
Comments:
<< Home
Wow! I get to leave the first comment! I can't believe it!
Usually I'm too late to leave any comments for indy movies at this blog because Richmond gets those films weeks later than the Windy City. That being said, I was able to see a free preview of "Violence" at Richmond's best (and only) art theater, the Westhampton. I asked Brian if I could guest-blog for this film, but I was rudely turned down. Letting the baby have his milk, I must say I agree with most of the Cole man's comments. Cronenberg tries to create a kind of David Lynchian mood to the film, asking "what really lies beneath the exterior of the average middle American family." But he never pulls it off. The film's simple and cliched plot has a B movie quality to it, which isn't really a bad thing. More capable direction could have worked, but unfortunately Cronenberg wasn't up to snuff.
Mortensen gives a understated and believable performance, but the rest of the cast is disappointing. William Hurt implausibly plays a mob kingpin, all the time doing his usual mama's boy kvetching schtick. Please; this guy's about as threatening as the Easter Bunny. On top of all this, the rest of the cast conveys the sickeningly sweet stench of being made in Canada. Middle America, huh, Cronenberg? Yeah, right.
Was my preview of "Violence" really free? Alas, no. My bus fare to the theater cost $2 round trip and I had to buy a couple of beers sitting at Philip's Continental Lounge while waiting for my return bus to stop outside the theater and take me home.
Best part of the evening: A woman took her five year old son to see the movie with her. Apparently it was okay for him to witness several scenes of graphic violence, but as soon as a scene came on displaying sex between a married couple, she had had enough. She angrily dragged him out of the theater, all the while muttering "THAT'S just too much!" I think that action alone was worth the price of admission (zero dollars).
Post a Comment
Usually I'm too late to leave any comments for indy movies at this blog because Richmond gets those films weeks later than the Windy City. That being said, I was able to see a free preview of "Violence" at Richmond's best (and only) art theater, the Westhampton. I asked Brian if I could guest-blog for this film, but I was rudely turned down. Letting the baby have his milk, I must say I agree with most of the Cole man's comments. Cronenberg tries to create a kind of David Lynchian mood to the film, asking "what really lies beneath the exterior of the average middle American family." But he never pulls it off. The film's simple and cliched plot has a B movie quality to it, which isn't really a bad thing. More capable direction could have worked, but unfortunately Cronenberg wasn't up to snuff.
Mortensen gives a understated and believable performance, but the rest of the cast is disappointing. William Hurt implausibly plays a mob kingpin, all the time doing his usual mama's boy kvetching schtick. Please; this guy's about as threatening as the Easter Bunny. On top of all this, the rest of the cast conveys the sickeningly sweet stench of being made in Canada. Middle America, huh, Cronenberg? Yeah, right.
Was my preview of "Violence" really free? Alas, no. My bus fare to the theater cost $2 round trip and I had to buy a couple of beers sitting at Philip's Continental Lounge while waiting for my return bus to stop outside the theater and take me home.
Best part of the evening: A woman took her five year old son to see the movie with her. Apparently it was okay for him to witness several scenes of graphic violence, but as soon as a scene came on displaying sex between a married couple, she had had enough. She angrily dragged him out of the theater, all the while muttering "THAT'S just too much!" I think that action alone was worth the price of admission (zero dollars).
# posted by 
: 10:45 AM
: 10:45 AM<< Home
