Cinecast #42: Out Of The Past
A History of Violence: A quick look at Canadian filmmaker David Cronenberg's career reveals the director's obsession with exploring the dark, sometimes perverse corners of the human psyche. Movies like "The Fly," "Dead Ringers" and "Crash" all see Cronenberg examining the dark terrain that lurks beneath our everyday public exteriors. "A History of Violence," adapted from the graphic novel by John Wagner and Vince Locke, continues in that tradition with remarkably successful results. Patient, provocative and wholly compelling, "Violence" is one of the best films of the year. (Actually, Adam says it IS the best film of the year so far.)
Also on the show, our Overlooked DVD Picks of the Week and our Top 5 Actresses.
Music by Slobberbone courtesy of Bloodshot Records ... Cinecast theme music by Age of the Rifle.
Cinecast #42
:30-11:25 - Review: "A History of Violence"
11:26-16:00 - Overlooked DVD Picks of the Week
Music: Slobberbone, "Barrel Chested"
17:17-33:52 - Top 5 Actresses
Have a comment or Top 5 list you'd like to share? Send us an e-mail at cinecast@cinecastshow.com. Or give us a call at 206-203-CINE and leave a voice message.
3 Comments:
Great show but I was compelled to write for the first time as i was left dumbstruck by your review of 'A History of Violence'. Your critical chops have given out on this one guys! Did you actually listen to any of the dialogue? Trite hardly begins to describe it, particularly in the opening 20 minutes. The final face-to-face with William Hurt, in an overblown Tom Wilkinson-in-Batman routine, reeks of pretentious verbosity.
The sex scenes? Cliched and laughable. How many times have we seen the 'anger turns to passion' routine? It was so bad it actually recalled Mr and Mrs Smith. Also, in your self-appointed crusade against misogynism, did you not consider the scene on the stairs a worrying example of 'no' supposedly meaning 'yes'? While the sex scenes were intimate and accurate in their portrayal, there was very little actual nudity until Cronenburg felt the need to add a gratuitous shot of Bello strolling around with her dressing gown open. Why?
The school bully revenge subplot was dealt with in a superficial and predictable fashion and the crude 'violence leads to violence' message is hammered home a number of times, most tellingly in a discussion between Mortenson and his son soon after he exacts his revenge on the hackneyed jock nasties. The actual violence is surprisingly ineffective at shocking the viewer and at times has worryingly comic book overtones. And this film is an example of what you consider surprising and intelligent...
William Hurt apart, the acting from the two leads was fine but the support badly lacking. You may not be a fan of Dakota Fanning but the Stalls' daughter was amateurish. The ending is problematic and her role in the re-integration and acceptance of Tom back into his family is completely manipulative and occurs far too quickly. This, after all, is a man who left them all in the middle of the night for reasons unknown to them and disappeared for several days. And you cannot tell me his other problems are over, everybody knows the mafia does not leave loose ends.
Man, I just don't agree with any of these assertions. First of all I think 'anger turns to passion' is an incredibly superficial reading of this scene, but I'm just going to focus on the aftermath. The reason that Cronenberg adds that 'gratuitous' scene is another perfect example of the subtlety and complexity that Cronenberg brings to this film. The answer is written all over her face and body language (thanks to an exceptional performance). As she walks out naked, she then sees her 'husband' with who she's just had a major fight and deeply aggresive sexual experience with and for the first time feels the need to cover (protect) herself. After all it would be perfectly normal for a wife to leave her gown open, especially after sex, but the hasty and angry way she closes it is completely character driven and furthers our understanding of her and the damage that has been done to their relationship.
Secondly, I wouldn't really say this movie has a message, and I think that's a good thing. He's not interested in simply shocking us to make a 'moral' point. He shows numerous sides of the violence and allows the viewer to make their own distinctions. This is why some of the violent scenes are very funny, and sad, and satisfying all at once. That's not an accident, that takes real skill. The best part is I could actually hear these responses in the audience. When I saw this people cheered, gasped, and laughed all at once, and the cutaways to magled faces never failed to show that violence is ugly, even if it's the right thing to do. So I don't see those overtones as worrying, but intelligent. I think if making a moral point about violence was the intention of the film it would've ended at the edge of the water where Tom washed himself after the massacre. Instead of washing up and heading home, he would've shot himself right there. I actually thought he might do that, and if he had it would've made the film more of a tragedy and a more typical anti violence film. Instead though, he washes up, and tries to move on with his life. To me this suggests that the violence is simply a part of life and is neither bad nor good. A messy and complicated part, but an unavoidable and sometimes necessary one.
Interestingly I also don't think of that ending scene as re-integration or acceptance. While his son may pass him the food he refuses to make any eye-contact. The look on Maria Bello's face to me is much more indicitve of an internal debate. I can see her trying to figure out if they can sucessfully deny this trauma and move back into their comfortable fairytale life, or if their relationship is destroyed forever. Also, I never assume that his problems are over, and I don't think that the Cronenberg wants us to. Afterall, I'm guessing that the sherriff is going to put two and two together when he hears about this slaughter in Philly. Which begs the really fun question, will he deny this also so that the entire town can return to it's happy myth? Or will he do the unpleasant thing and admit that the truth? My instict was that he never entirely believed the Stall's story in the first place, but was happier to leave it alone.
I strongly disagree with your opinion on "A History of Violence". I think this movie was a mess and even very talented actors like Ed Harris sucked horribly. U guys were right when u thought something seemed off in the beginning, but it never stopped being off. To hear more of my opinion check out my podcast about this movie on the site Latent Image.com. Otherwise I love your show and listen to it all the time! Good work.
-Joe
The Latent Image
Post a Comment
<< Home