Post-release: History Of Violence - Page 3

Both the ambiguity of the ending and the ambiguity of the "Joey"ness of Tom are strengths, IMO.

I can see why Micah interprets the film the way he does, but, while watching the film, the evidence seemed much stronger that, in the 20 years since reinventing himself, he'd become Tom in belief and action. Does this actually make him Tom at the outset of the movie, or is he still Joey with a thick layer of self-delusion (because, while I agree that his unconscious motivation may be Joey, I don't buy it as an eternally present motivation - he loves his family; they're not just cover for his persona)? I think that has everything to do with your personal concept of "identity." Is it our past actions or our current beliefs that more fully define who we are? And this is just the base on which we consider Tom/Joey's actions, post-holdup.

I don't think I've seen anyone else mention this directly, but this film didn't immediately bring Out of the Past to mind for me as much as Dogville. It might be the surface imagery of big city criminals descending on small-town America, but I think there are some deeper concepts in common, as well. There's an undercurrent of violence in America's past that we deny constantly, but it manifests, every once in a while, in the least likely of spots. The rooting of this movie in specifically American iconography like baseball, the diner, and cheerleader outfits is deliberate, not just for the innocent appeal of these things, but because it's directly concerned not just with violence, or, more specifically, the violence of men and its legacy, but these things as they occur in America.

In retrospect, I do have to give the film additonal credit for being very fertile ground for analysis and discussion. Regardless of whether I agree with it or not, that's an achievement in and of itself.

Damn, this is a really fucking good catch. As soon as I read the word "Dogville," it immediately opened up a lot of possibilities about the parallels between the two films. I wonder if on some subconscious level, I've been unfairly holding this film up in comparison to Dogville, and it hasn't suffered from it.

The character arc of Grace in that film rang so much truer for me than did the arc of Tom Stall/Joey.

I think this also applies to many of the characters - from the leering, deformed villain to the avuncular but ineffective sheriff. Even the bully at school is the prototypical arrogant jock.

A lot of the more "cartoonish" characters are deliberately so, I think, because Cronenberg is using specifically American archetypes drawn from cowboy movies, gangster noir and teen drama to tell his story.

Should this credit go to the movie or the ones who analyze and discuss it? It seems that someone could disect anything if they had a desire to do so. If we hate a movie, we may say it sucks and that any attempt to analyze it and its purpose would be useless. That doesn't mean, however, someone else can't find that same movie enjoyable and emotionally or mentally satisfying.

Sorry to digress. This really IS an interesting discussion, unlike so many other threads where people bash other's opinions and expect those same people to see the validity of their own arguement. Maybe I should have posted this in the Roeper thread. Again, I apologize. Continue.

I think the the journey to Philly was a very necessary part of the plot, but I have reservations about Hurt's scenery chewing in that section of the film.

I really enjoyed this film. As someone mentioned earlier in the thread, it was a great combination of a character study and an action film. I remember thinking in the middle, I have no idea what is going to happen next and that is a good thing.

The only problem is that the end was ruined for me because a damn usher opened the theatre doors with about seven minutes left in the movie. The lobby light was pouring into our theatre and you could hear people talking and the sound of other movies from outside. This especially sucked because the ending of this movie is so quiet the outside sounds were especially distracting.

I actually got up and closed the doors and got a "Great Job" from someone sitting behind me, but the usher came back and opened up the damned doors again. I totally missed the subtleties of the final scene at the dinner table because of that idiotic usher.

I disagree. If Cronenberg had wrapped it with Viggo standing in the door, with his family looking at him, maybe. But instead his daughter gets him a plate, his kid gives him a roast, and his wife is still wearing her ring. As Micah says, these are accepting actions, if not necessarily welcoming. The indications point much more to his family accepting him back into the fold than not.

I just don't think that the only cost to Tom is a "few arguments" that are "pretty much" wrapped up at the end.

He sits back at their table, his daughter gets him a plate, his son passes the meatloaf - but pointedly doesn't actually serve any to his father. His wife just looks at him and cries.

That's not even close to being wrapped up.

I don't deny that the actions of the family represent some form of acceptance - they clearly do - but it's the form of that acceptance, the question of what is being accepted, that I think you're selling way short.

His wife doesn't throw her wedding ring in his face, his son doesn't storm out of the room, because those would be hollow and trite reactions - those would be movie reactions to a complex situation.

What we see is the very beginning of a resolution, literally the first minute of the family's new reality, and it's left up to the audience to work out what it means for each of them, what that resolution will be. The absence of rejection doesn't automatically equal acceptance, and the token gestures made towards Tom are loaded with potential meanings. Is it done with sincerity, or grudging reluctance? Are they meant to show forgiveness? Are they meant to show that they're willing to let him be Tom Stall again? Or that they accept him as Joey Cusack? Or just that they're too broken to ponder what it means to fill the hole marked "Father and Husband"?

To say that such a powerful, symbolic and layered scene represents "a few family arguments being pretty much wrapped up", just because Tom sits back at the table, is a rather shallow reading of what's on screen.

When dealing with a filmmaker like Cronenberg, who has built his career on an almost clinical precision when it comes to tweaking the audience and playing on their expectations, I think it's fair to assume that any room for discussion has been left deliberately by the artist.

This is an incredibly economical movie - nothing is said or shown by accident. Right from the opening shot, when the younger of the two killers straightens the crooked lawn chair - a peculiar act of order from a character who is otherwise pure chaos - Cronenberg sets up a series of purposefully contradictory character tropes and lets the viewer wrestle with how they can co-exist.

Because, when it all comes down to it, that's one of the things this movie is about - how human beings are complex organisms, and how we can be two seemingly incompatible things at the same time.

The film plays on American symbology all the way through, as has already been stated on this thread. The father coming home with the family dinner waiting, the meatloaf, and so on are all strong 50's iconography of that old style 'american dream' - Safety, unity, belonging and all that stuff. the family are going through the motions of the dinner still, the ritual, but they aren't sure if it means anything anymore. they do not know if they are a family anymore, or if they were ever really a family.

It ties in with the Tom/Joey thing. Does his past make his present just a dream - something that never really was, a delusion - or can we be whoever we choose to be.

Is the american dream undermined by the country's past? the film's ending asks you all these questions - it sets up the context of the problem and leaves it with you. that's why it's great.

Bingo.

Everything in the movie works on different levels. It's about this particular character, Tom Stall. It's about men in general, and the potential for violence inherited from father to son. It's about America, and it's own history of violence.

Everything is right there to be worked out - in the ambiguous title and and in the ambiguous events on screen.

Just like any Cronenberg movie it asks too much of the audience. I mean, I hated the man, but Scanners and History, as a whole, turned me around.

Naked Lunch and Crash can still suck my ass though.

His movies ask "too much" of an audience? I'd say that's true only for audiences who insist on being entirely passive. While there are certainly things going on under the surface, it's not like it takes a doctorate to understand or analyze a Cronenberg movie. Scanners, which I enjoy nonetheless, is probably one of his less fertile movies for analysis, but maybe you're just more into the heads-exploding thing.

Crash, Naked Lunch, and Spider are a little less satisfying, but they're really fascinating attempts at adapting the unadaptable.

Overall I didn’t take to this movie. Not awful, but not great either. I liked Ed Harris’s supporting role the best, along with some nice, jarring gore effects, but that’s about all.

William Hurt’s make-up convinced me if they ever do Inside the Actor’s Studio: The Movie, he needs to be cast as James Lipton.

Pretty solid picture.

The actor that played the son showcased some terrible acting chops. Overplayed nearly every scene.

Just saw it and the more I think about it, the more I like it. It's a neat little film in a "Simple Plan" kind of way.

i really dug this movie. i totally agree with what you had to say mr. kubrick.

ok some of you have been discussing the ending. i can see where it can be left open for interpretation but basically i think they accepted him. first with his daughter passing him the plate, then the son passing him the food and then finally we see edie staring at him. earlier in the movie tom told her that he could tell the very first moment she loved him by the look in her eyes. so i took the ending that he could still see that love. sure they'll still have a lot of shit to deal with and work out but that's besides the point.

I agree that the line about seeing the love in her eyes is what drives the final shot, but what I think is great is that it's so open to interpretation. You think he sees that love. I think we leave him still looking for it. Both are valid.

Actually, far from being besides the point, I'd say that "having a lot of shit to deal with and work out" is precisely the point. We're conditioned by Hollywood to see that sort of aftermath, the tedious emotional fall-out of violence, as easily dealt with. It's the physical survival of the hero that matters. This movie is about the emotional and spiritual survival of the family, and in that regard it leaves us with a delicious amount of doubt.

i don't know. i just think it's supposed to be a very simple movie. we don't really need to see the aftermath. we don't need to see hugs and kisses just to feel closure. you can pretty much decide for yourself what happened and i'm on the side that think's tom perhap's saw the love in edie's eyes even with the total distraught, betrayal and confusion that she is feeling.

I liked the movie and all but I had a few issues. mainly, that of the gratuitous sex/nudity scenes-- most notably, the one where she comes out in a robe that is hanging open and her, well you know what, is all in your face. i just felt it served no purpose. now nudity doesn't bother me in any way, i just didn't understand it's placement in the film...

I find it very difficult to believe that a person who has to type that has no problem with nudity.

I'll bite. According to my hackeyed theory, the two sex scenes were used to illustrate the differences between Tom Stall and his previous self. As Tom Stall, the sex is gentle and "innocent". After it's revealed that he's Joey Cusack, the sex is brutal and (wait for it) violent.

It finally hit here on Friday. I liked it, particularily the ending.

My take on the sex scenes is that sex is often about violence. Croneberg often uses American sexual politics in his films. However I think the difference between the sex scenes is not just about Tom. Both Tom and his wife are very angry with each other in the last sex scene. It is a violent scene, which they both participated in and neither of them feels very good about it in the end. The point of the wife wearing her robe half open is not some much as sexual comment or gratuitous, but rather a reflection of the emptiness that they feel toward each other at that moment. They are distanced from one another despite having a recent close physical association.

The scene in her bed that night with her back totally beat up...was an excellent metaphor for the pain and the scarring that she was and will always carry with her.

One last thought would be that we are very desensitized to violence, but sexuality (especially in the US) makes people uncomfortable and that is exactly what Croneberg wants us to feel.

I believe the technical term for it is her "foo foo". Or, if you want to be a bit crude, her "mimsy".

Loved this film. Here was the original poster:



Here's what they're using for the DVD:



Horrible. Is the point to fool the audience it's thinking it's some generic piece of crap? If so, well done:











Hey, if they want the disc to sell well, put Maria Bello on the cover, in the cheerleader outfit, 69ing Viggo. That should work.

They might as well just debut that in the $6.99 bin, because that's where covers like that end up.

An atrocious failure.

When I first saw that DVD art my jaw hit the floor. This is the worst case of changing cool theatrical art for horrid DVD art since ROAD TO PERDITION. If they dropped the 2 kids from the VIOLENCE cover you'd have a dead ringer for this:

Maybe Region 2 will take care of us.

I suppose if they wanted to go with something generic they could have made a cover out of this shot:



But to replace the great original art with something that looks like a Lifetime original film about a family being forced to sell their farm is depressing.

We had this for the UK theatrical campaign:



but the rental release, at least, for R2 has the gun-in-front-of-face image. We'll know the retail sleeve soon.

I finally managed to see this and thought it was a terrific examination of violence and it's aftermath.

Viggo was great, when Joey takes over you want to yell 'fucking badass' at him but the following aftermath just makes the statement sound hollow, he's a brutal killer, the scene where Joey is finally revealed and he approaches his son who has the shotgun, the look in his eyes is just chilling, that scene right there encapsulates the idea of father/son rituals through violence, you can see Joey almost smiling because his son has proved himself in Joey's eye's but then he reverts back to Tom and the action saddens him greatly, his son has inherited his instinct for killing, this also is explored in the scene where the son brutally beats the shit out of the bully, the bully may have a complete asshole but Joey's handling of the two bullies with clear ease shows he has more of Joey in him than he'd like to admit, although he probably doesn't give it too much thought until later in the film.

The other scene that I found quite disturbing was the second sex scene, it wasn't just the fact that it bordered on rape but that Edie just decided to let go and accept Joey having sex with her, almost like it turned her on and when it was over she felt disgusted, whether or not it was with herself or Joey wasn't made abundantly clear but it looked like she used her sexuality against Joey, he was too exhausted after having sex to grab her, her coming out of the bathroom naked I think was meant to convey her trying to cleanse herself, she couldn't even look at him she felt so disgusted.

The violence was so fucking brutal in this film, someone get's his nose broken off, the guy in the diner get's his face shot off.

All in all, it was well worth seeing.

Nice, I recently saw the film and can't get why people feel the sex/nudity scenes are so unnecessary, I think it's perfectly clear on what they've been put in there for, there is more to Bello's character than just a loving mom and a faithful wife.

Anway yes it was chilling film and alot more tightly written than the graphic novel, I hope there will be a special edition of this film with better artwork.

I thought the final scene was just brilliant, nothing is said, he came back to his family knowing he's probably lost all respect in their eyes but he still went back to his family because he has nowhere else to go.

Hilarious.

So, a bit late but I finally checked this out. I was a tad disappointed by the film, and the music was too Lord-of-the-Rings-ish, hope Shore has got that out of his system. I agree with Micah's post above:

Ed Harris was great. William Hurt...not so much.

Yeah, that was my favourite scene of the film I think, I didnt know what his reaction was going to be, he seemed to be on the precipice of a crossroads, as a mobster from Sopranos would like to say. Viggo is just the man. The making of LotR documentaries made me respect him as a person, and he keeps delivering the goods on every film.

Love the IMDB trivia:

Absolutely.

 

 

I don't think it is. She's also carrying a newspaper with his face on the front page, and every news channel isn't just reporting it as news, but as some human interest "American Hero" story, indicating some time has passed. Cutting night to night makes it all play a bit surreal, but...

 

To me that weird disregard for continuity (not just time, but space/geography and character placement on top of the aforementioned weird line readings) at the beginning are all serving the single purpose of making Tom's life in Milbrook literally "unreal." It serves the narrative really well, though it plays better and is less disorienting the second time around.

 

Edited by Phil - 12/1/11 at 7:06pm

 

Yes! And the way that contrasts with the tone of final scene, it's like a curtain is being drawn back, and we're seeing a real family for the first time.  And what that says about us is chilling.

This is also supported by the use of stock character types, which are destroyed/stripped away by the end. Thinking in particular of the high school bully, as well as background characters like the Mayberry-worthy folks who populate the diner who are not seen again after the first act, the friendly good old boy small town sheriff who is gone by the start of the third, etc.

I like to watch Horror movies but violence in films don't like ;) 

 

 

I saw this film with my best friend, back in the day. We went to this in theaters, and had a marvelous time of it