A History of Violence

Reviews of movies, music, hardware, or whatever.
Post Reply
User avatar
miftah
le moth
Posts: 2703
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2003 5:15 pm
Location: Assland, OH
Has thanked: 22 times
Been thanked: 15 times
Contact:

A History of Violence

Post by miftah » Sat Oct 01, 2005 7:57 pm

Quickly? I liked it, but not nearly as much as the reviewers who've hyped the holy living hell out of it.

Not so quickly? Quiet man is forced into violence, which unleashes a legacy of violence that he is ultimately forced to confront and vanquish. Looking at it like that, its like a Chuck Norris film.

Add in a splash of Cronenberg's typical, gross approach to violence and you have the essence of this film. Oh, and there's a couple of sex scenes that are fairly honest, and totally relevent to the movie (the intimacy level - and the loss thereof - is the key to understanding their utility).

Ed Harris is really good (and he's been shit in a couple of movies, so it could have gone either way), and William Hurt is outstanding (and he's actually stretching himself with this one). Viggo "batshit crazy" Mortensen plays his role so understatedly its like he's trying to do the whole film through telekenisis. Some have lauded him for his internal performance, but I, on the other hand, am not attracted to his physical appearance.

But while the sex and violence are relevent (and indeed the dynamic through which the story is told) there is only one character in the film that anyone could possibly care about: Maria Bella as the wife. The rest of the characters in the film are either told so dryly they couldn't be cared for, so poorly they're unbelievable, or so boldly they're merely charicatures. Only Maria Bella connects with her character. Only her character shows any real indication of having been changed from the events in the film.

Oh, and by the way, could everyone but Scorsese stop using the mob in films? Between them and the serial killers, Hollywood has managed to make the most frightening real-life bad guys of our culture really fucking boring.

Ok, so that's what was wrong. What was right? Well, the mundane family meets the violence of bad men. If you don't care about the idea of a family, then this movie isn't for you. You have to know the importance of one and what it means to people in order for anything to mean anything. Otherwise, the only threat comes as bodily harm. And by now, I think America is pretty much immune to the idea of bodily harm.

The other thing I liked about the film is how, essentially each of the three acts culminated with an essential act of violence. Its a storytellers nod I suppose, and an obvious one, but one that the film requires in order for ithe violence to not be treated as titillation. Its done quickly, without stylization or fetishization, and the honest aftermath is portrayed bluntly (if, again, in the typically weird Cronenberg fashion). Violence in films is usually played like pornography and that it is handled without entertainment value here, like the sex scenes, allows the greater point to come through.

Which is all well and good, but when the moral is "violence begets violence," well, we've heard that, which is probably why this film left me underwhelmed for the most part.
"Fear of the bee means the honey is for me" - Jhonn Balance
Post Reply