BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Film, TV & Theatre >

A History of Violence (SPOILER ALERT)

  
 
TeN
01:43 / 10.10.05
I just came back from watching it. My feelings are sort of mixed. I thought some of the violence was just a bit over the top, but overall it handled the issue of violence incredibly well and very intelligently. What facinated me the most was how ambiguous it was. It raised so many questions, and yet answered absolutely none. The final scene, in my opinion, was brilliantly done. It sums up what all of us in the theatre were thinking - where does Tom, where does his family, where do they go from here? Can they accept it? Will it always haunt them? But Cronenberg doesn't give us an answer. He cuts to the credits.

Some other interesting points:

All of the murders Tom commits within the time frame of the film (about a dozen) were in self defense. but are they justified? obviously the first two were, but the rest , Tom brought them on himself. Is it okay to walk away from a life of violence, to resign from it, and expect it never to come back to you again? Does Tom have to claim responsibility for the actions of his "former life," even if he truly is a changed man? IS he truly a changed man? Certainly the violence he commits in his "new life" would suggest that there are still parts of "Joey" still living within him (as Ed Harris' character says: "Still crazy fucking Joey").

Also, what's to be made of the (rather explicit) sex scenes? The second feels almost like a rape, and Cronenberg does a masterful job of forcing us to look at the curious relationship between sex and violence.


That's enough from me for now. Who's seen it? What did you think?
 
 
PatrickMM
01:56 / 10.10.05
I saw it yesterday and really liked it. In some ways it's an American version of Chanwook Park's Vengeance trilogy, touching on similar issues, and simultaneously condemning violence and fetishizing the filmic depiction of it.

The ending seems to suggest that people are willing to make any sacrifice to preserve the illusion of the American dream. With the 'rape' scene, it seemed like Edie at first resists him, because she sees him as Joey, but she gradually realizes that if she does reject him, her whole life, her whole identity is destroyed and she'll have to start from scratch. So, she decides to embrace the Tom persona, and continue the life they were already leading. This is a theme that's best expressed when she asks Tom if he just made up the name, and where does that leave her and the kids?

By killing his brother, Tom essentially erases everyone who knew about Joey, leaving him free to be Tom again, and return to the life that he led. But that life is now even more of a precarious lie than it was before.

So, it's definitely a departure, but the theme of shifting personas and identity crises definitely ties it in with Cronenberg's previous work.
 
 
grant
02:40 / 10.10.05
1, What was with the coffee? Everywhere, coffee.

2. Why had I never heard of the graphic novel this came from?
 
 
Mystery Gypt
03:37 / 10.10.05
interestingly, as he has mentioned in several interviews, Cronenberg himself had never heard of the graphic novel until halfway through shooting.

as for the issue of it being a departure -- i'm not feeling that so much. only to the degree that it's not science fiction. but it seems like a conceptual sequel to Spider, very similar concepts. Spider was also about a man lost in a new identity, the memory of his horrible violent act returning relentlessly to both his memory and his body.

the idea of Tom's absolute belief that he is a new person, and that fact that it is his body -- the way he looks -- that gives him away to the east coast gangsters -- ie, he is trapped in the old flesh while claming a new identity -- that seem very Cronenbergian as well.
 
 
sleazenation
06:16 / 10.10.05
The graphic novel came out of Paradox Press, DCs now defunct imprint for mostly creator-owned stuff in 1997. such titles recieved little promotion and thus largely sank without trace. But, you kknow, hollywood scriptwriters read them...
 
 
_Boboss
10:28 / 10.10.05
it looks like it's been remaindered quite recently, probably in anticipation of a movie-inspired second edition - good chance of finding lots of v v cheap copies in your local bargains shop. an excellent bit of not-dredd from john wagner with very storytelly, unflashy art that gets very horrible without really showing all that much. from what i've heard from folk who've seen the movie, half the good shit's been left out, which is a shame.
 
 
Jack Vincennes
11:33 / 10.10.05
Is it okay to walk away from a life of violence, to resign from it, and expect it never to come back to you again?

Something I found interesting here, and in terms of the way violence was treated in the film, was the fact that you remember how everyone died. I thought that did a good job of showing how the plot might have felt from Tom's point of view; he might have felt like he had to kill those people, but he was by no means desensitised to it, and the fact that it was necessary didn't mean it was easy. It puts Tom's violence as something he physically can do rather than something he enjoys doing, which points (I think) to the idea that a culture of violence can be escaped from mentally but not physically: the gangsters recognise his face, which he can't leave, and he still knows how to kill people even if he hasn't had to do it for some decades.
 
 
sleazenation
22:07 / 10.10.05
I enjoyed both the film and the graphic novel. Although they have different endings (and I can't see hollywood filming the GN version ending without it coming off as more boxing helena than audition) they both remain faithful to the main theme of violence and, its price and its role in identity.

Both manage to convey the bleak calculus of violence painfully well.

Once you've pulled that first trigger, there is no going back. And the pressure to pull the next one is all the greater...
 
 
grant
00:53 / 11.10.05
So, uh, what's the different ending?
 
 
Jack Vincennes
10:30 / 11.10.05
Yes, do tell -I loved the ambivalence of the film version, so I'm interested to hear what a 'real' conclusion to the story could have been.
 
 
sleazenation
20:41 / 11.10.05
Actually, thinking about it, it isn't just the endings that are different - the film and the book part ways roughly halfway through, but they still manage to share the same themes and general journey all the way through.

In the GN, Joey grew up in a bad neighbourhood in Philly with a friend. Joey's friend pulled him into a heist against a local boss that turned violent. Joey barely escaped with his life. He tried his best to start over, but, you know... Anyway. The Mr Torrino thing happens pretty much like the film and then when joey decides he has to face the mob from the past again he discovers that his old friend isn't dead - he has just been tortured constantly for the past two decades. His arms and legs have been cut off - that sort of stuff. Its a pretty unsubtle metaphore about the nature of violence. But yeah, Joey survives. The bad guys don't and the family get back together, keenly aware of the kind of man Dad is and the price of violence...
 
 
sleazenation
20:41 / 11.10.05
Actually, thinking about it, it isn't just the endings that are different - the film and the book part ways roughly halfway through, but they still manage to share the same themes and general journey all the way through.

In the GN, Joey grew up in a bad neighbourhood in Philly with a friend. Joey's friend pulled him into a heist against a local boss that turned violent. Joey barely escaped with his life. He tried his best to start over, but, you know... Anyway. The Mr Torrino thing happens pretty much like the film and then when joey decides he has to face the mob from the past again he discovers that his old friend isn't dead - he has just been tortured constantly for the past two decades. His arms and legs have been cut off - that sort of stuff. Its a pretty unsubtle metaphore about the nature of violence. But yeah, Joey survives. The bad guys don't and the family get back together, keenly aware of the kind of man Dad is and the price of violence...
 
 
Mr Tricks
18:04 / 24.10.05
Great great flick.

Powerful use of those extended scenes to lull you into acceptance of that world as the norm. Then; BAM!!! BAM BAM BAM the violence.

Even that school hall brawl was powerful, something in there about a genuine surrender to the violent call. That "Bully" was never really violent, he folded when confronted by those first 2 killers on the street (even in the safety of his Muscle Car). He was ultimatly just fearful of his own status as the alpha-highschool-male. Meanwhile Jack has obviously been raise to resort to any effort other than violence until his girlfriend is "threatened" He submits to the call to violence with absolute commitment, echoing his father.

There was certainly some tense SEX/VIOLENCE play going on. Interestingly that second stairway sex scene wseemed like a sort of consumation of her choice to protect Joey as well as Tom. The Sheriff was right there, she could've just had Tom/Joey cast out; instead she lied to protect him. Perhaps she was acting to protect her family on a whole, or their family name. Still, there was something there with regards to what she must have imagined would be her perfect marriage. Something there about her desire to fulfill the fantasy of "highschool sweethearts?"

BY the end of the film an interesting question arose. Did his wife accept his "return" as a measure to protect the family. Not even the police (some old sheriff nearing retirement) would be fit to protect the Stahls like Joey could. Even though it was Joey's pressence that placed that whole family in danger to begin with.

Coffee, black. I wonder if Tom has his coffee with lots of milk and sugar.
 
 
H3ct0r L1m4
03:48 / 10.03.06
only been able to see it yesterday down here. wonderful flick, übber-daughter of all telemovies about a former crook turned into a "great husband" and a modern western.

Cronenberg is aging very very well, as is Maria Bello [yeah, she does accept him back mostly to protect the family than anything else, and probably that's what Tom/Joey realises at that crushing final scene - his youngest child being the most unaware of the violence being the first to invite him to the table].

those powerful sex scenes, and it was great to see some honest sex shown in a Hollywood movie [when was the last time?], indicated how way their relatioship changed drastically after the Diner incident [1st she gives herself to him, then he has to take her by force - and, man, she was in charge at the end of it]; the change in his son's reaction to the bully was on a similar pattern.

I loved how you could replace Tom's former life with a hidden affair that surfaces and get a similar effect with the family dynamics. it was some great directing of actors and acting work, deserving of better recognition than just an Oscar nomination to William Hurt. I'venever seen the guy like that, he was amazing.

HOV had to me a strong resemblance to MULHOLLAND DRIVE and other works by David Lynch. and hey, most of Cronenberg movies are about mutations - this time it took place internally, but not in a less disgusting fashion. Joey Cusak was to Tom Stall what the fly was to Seth Brundle etc.

don't know where I read this, but there are so many subtle things going on HOV that we don't process them at the minute we're watching it. those two guys - the youngest even looking a bit like a younger Viggo - trigger an Infection of Violence that won't stop until patient zero is "healed", and it's not restrained to the Stalls [heh], but it spreads/bursts to/from that strangely-happy community as a whole.

it's something primal and rooted in the foundation of all the Americas [see that I'm not only impying the US of A, but of course there's something in its roots that's typically North American] and western society, of which so many "civilization" is expected.

it's kind of an authopsy of the modern man. and it goes further than the 9/11 metaphor about a country waking up to the fact their peace and prosperity might be spawned by centuries of harvesting on other cultures by way of force.

it's a Horror movie, actually.
 
  
Add Your Reply