A History of Violence

Director: David Cronenberg
Main Cast: Viggo Mortensen, Maria Bello, Ed Harris, William Hurt
Writer(s): John Wagner, Vince Locke, Josh Olson
Director of Photography: Peter Suschitzky
Producer(s): David Cronenberg, Chris Bender, J. C. Spink
Editor(s): Ronald Sanders
Original Score By: Howard Shore
Release Date: 2005 September 30

A History of Violence was exactly that: Violent (capitalization intended). I'm not sure exactly what I expected, but I probably should have known from the title. Whatever it was I anticipated I certainly did not receive it. Director David Cronenberg has created what some have called a cinematic masterpiece, but what I have deemed a soul-poisoning train wreck.

First let me dispense with a confession. I saw this film in the theater last year; sometime in October, if my memory serves me. For this reason I expect that much of the film criticism I usually offer will only be as good as my notes, which are scant. What I will try to offer are more general impressions and attempt to indicate where the thematic elements of the film fall short or succeed.

---

Director David Cronenberg has created what some have called a cinematic masterpiece, but what I have deemed a soul-poisoning train wreck.

---

Violent, explicitly. That is the second time I have emphasized this word, for those counting, and for what I would consider good reason. I am no prude when it comes violence. While I shy away from the horror genre, brutal attacks are not something that typically causes me to dislike a film. Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs, Saving Private Ryan, Braveheart, and Gladiator are all violent films. Yet I consider them to be spectacular in some way. The graphic depiction of excessive gore does not stir in me a feeling of uncontrollable nausea. This film did. Interestingly these upsetting scenes were relatively infrequent. From my recollection I believe there were four main sequences that made me feel unecessarily uncomfortable, but I think it was more than this that really turned the tide of my dislike. More on this later. Suffice to say that my inherent need to watch bloodied gunshot victims sucking a last gurgling breath through the teeth-exposing hole in their cheek is, in all honesty, nonexistent.

The more and more I see the more and more I'm begginning to think that Viggo Mortensen has only a spark of acting ability and that my positive impressions of him from Lord of the Rings were merely personal fascinations with the story and character, but not the acting. His delivery here was forced and dry. For a man with a history I suppose I would expect more. Maria Bello, who played Viggo's wife, was acceptable and even in a few scenes great. Ed Harris, the "bad guy" was just as stellar as one would expect from such a seasoned actor. Where the casting really fell apart was with the Viggo and Maria's two children. The son, Ashton Holmes, was a whiny distraction and the daughter, Heidi Hayes, was pedestrian.

For the sake of space I’ll ignore the general synopsis and simply move into an attempt at unpacking the narrative. The overarching weak point here, in my opinion, was the character conflict. The first half of the film was intriguing. It had me teeter-tottering between which storyline truth was the reality of the fictional situation. I was hesitantly engaged, distracted only by the two scenes in this act that were disturbingly vicious. As the story continued, however, and the mystery was revealed, the film lost its edge and had me writhing with anxiety for the rolling of the credits or the failure of the projector. During the second act the story became bloated with plot holes and inexplicable conveniences for the movie’s hero whose character tension never comes to a lucid conclusion.

Speaking of heroes, the movie’s definition of such seemed almost purposefully skewed. Tom Stall (Mortensen) was a man who had moved on from his despicable past. The problem was that I was not entirely convinced that he had left it behind, but more that he was hiding from things he wished had never happened. The transition of a character from amoral to heroic is undeniably well trodden territory. The real trouble here was that character became overly muddled towards the latter half of the film. It was not clear whether Tom wanted to leave his past or was once again embracing it. His dilemma was clear, but his choice was wishy-washy. And so it played out unresolved for the audience as well.

Tom did not desire the attention that he received from his act of bravery. He did not want the hero title. He knew that his act of aggression was, for him, an act of regression despite how others perceive it. It was indisputable that he took considerable personal risk for the sake of saving others—a commendable act. However, by doing so he instigated the chain reaction that pushed his character back into the world he so desperately wanted to leave. This continued to unravel down a path of catastrophe despite his best efforts to the contrary.

The reason, I believe, that the negative character reversal occurs so easily was that Tom had only suppressed his aggressive alter ego and not confronted the true nature of the horrific things that he had done. He does meet this challenge head to head at the end of the film, to some degree, when he reunites with his criminally connected brother. The conclusion of what transpires is neither redemptive nor satisfying.

Despite the main character’s mention of church going and the forceful and frequent display of his crucifix necklace, Tom’s character never accepts the forgiveness or clings to his faith that he so clearly seemed to be advertising. In fact, the one character who does display some of this divine mercy is Tom’s wife who reluctantly, though steadfastly, stands by her husband during his lapse into depravity and dishonesty. Her dedication when viewed from a somewhat more objective perspective does at times, however, border on psychosis. So, at best, she demonstrates a very flawed and misguided sense of grace.

---

Suffice to say that my inherent need to watch bloodied gunshot victims sucking a last gurgling breath through the teeth-exposing hole in their cheek is, in all honesty, nonexistent.

---

Tom had not only tried to hide his past from his own psyche, but also from the family he claimed to love. I found this deception exceptionally poignant with his relationship to his wife. Their marriage was portrayed with a loving tenderness, mutual affection, and true dedication. Well, all that is true except for the part where Tom lies about everything he truly is and where he came from. (I feel I’m obligated to point out that the communication of the husband/wife relationship is demonstrated on occasion through graphic and brutal sex scenes and in others through superfluous full frontal nudity.) From that point of realization forward it is clear that what seems a healthy marriage is actually merely a farce. It is evident throughout the film that Tom does indeed care about his family even to the point of sacrificing his "new" life to prevent them from further harm. This self-sacrificing behavior seemed to imply that he had made a true moral turning point. This proved to be a poor presumption as some of his final actions were more ghastly than their appalling predecessors.

Despite the short running time, this film induced in me an oppressive feeling of disgust that seemed to start out as a minor unpleasantness and build for what seemed like eons. The director, in my opinion, should have exercised more restraint. Many great filmic artists have proven that the human imagination can be far more adept at moving one to emotional response without displaying every minute detail onscreen. I should have suspected, based on David Cronenberg’s previous cinematic jaunts, that this was not something that really deserved my attention or my money. In the end the lack of moral turning point or statement regarding the lives and behaviors of the characters left me with little more than a sick feeling in my stomach. This is the movie that forced me to cross off several films from my "Must See" list after further re-evaluation of their content.

Bottom Line: With an unclear and misguided message, graphic violence, explicit sex, and overall seediness this film is simply intolerable. The redeeming qualities go unrealized and are overcome by the director's lack of self-discipline. In the end it is cinematically acceptable, morally abominable, and generally avoidable. This movie should be not only left on the shelf, but preferably never placed there in the first place. I, for one, wish I had never seen it.

A regrettable 3 out of 10

~RG