A History of Violence - What is your take? (spoilers)

[virometal]

Without a doubt, History of Violence is the best movie I have seen this year. I have always enjoyed plodding tense films where the depravity erupts in short, intense bursts. Clint Eastwood films like Unforgiven or the recent Mystic River come to mind.

One thing I can not get past is the final sex scene. How could a picture perfect Norman Rockwell couple like Tom and Eide engage is such hateful passion? Sure, we knew Tom had it in him, but Edie? Her aggresive streak is evident early as she fends for Tom in the diner and contacts the fuzz, but how could she be aroused by Tom's brute alpha male turn? Perhaps, that is what she had been wanting? After years of loving the gentle Tom, the alpha male was more than welcomed.

That scene alone threw me for a loop and changed the perspective of the picture. The dynamic of the couple makes the film.

Then the final scene left me with more questions than answers. It is obvious the kids accepted daddy back with the ceremonial placing of the plate and pushing of the roast.

But what was going on in Edie as she raises her head to view the man she no longer knows with tear soaked eyes?

I know the film buffs out there would love to give me their thoughts.

 

[AC1]

Just curious, what made this a movie the best you have seen this year?
Or really any comments on what people think of it.
My friends hated it since the dialoge was mundane and a lot of scenes dragged on, they only liked the violent scenes. Personally I found it to be interesting, though I can understand how people thinks it drags.
Trying to get perspective here since I think this is one of these movies where it can have different takes on it.

 

[BillyC]

I thought that the movie was pretty good.

I did have some problems with it. The establishing scenes of quiet small town life were hokey and clichéd. The bully was just about the worst bully stuff I've ever seen. Real after school special material. I did like it when he got what was coming to him.

The fiirst scene with the killers would have been more effective if the camera had stopped at the door of the motel office. We did not have to see their handy work. It would have been better left to the imagination.

The second sex scene was unsettling. At first it looked like he was going to killer her, then he was only going to force himself on her. You can see his moment of realisation that that is something that Joey and not Tom would do. He pulls away, slightly horified?, but then she leans into him. I don't think that I have an explation for it other than she was turned on by his alpha maleness and the protection of her children. It was an interesting scene, and it did make me think. Though I don't have any real answers.

 

[virometal]

Quote:

Originally Posted by AC1 Just curious, what made this a movie the best you have seen this year?

I thought the acting was sensational. The only so so performance was Hurt's who was a little over the top for such a restrained film. Like I mentioned above, I have always enjoyed movies that are deliberate then explosive. This one does that for me. To me, violence is much more provoking when it is framed by so many quiet moments.

Take the scene where Tom is holding the shotgun while speaking to his son. I felt nervous with it in his hands. When he finally place the gun on the table, I felt relief. That to me, is very effective story telling.

But I am no film scholar and can see why many would find the movie taxing. Also, there just hasn't been very many good movies to me this year.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyC The establishing scenes of quiet small town life were hokey and clichéd

Yeah, the movie was awfully earnest in the early delivery of retread themes. I thought it was necessary to drive home the delicate nature of nomalcy. However, now that I think about it, you might just be right.

Quote:

The fiirst scene with the killers would have been more effective if the camera had stopped at the door of the motel office. We did not have to see their handy work. It would have been better left to the imagination.

I thought the same thing. They really wanted to hammer the nail in the coffin with the little girl though.

 

[BillyC]

There was lots that I liked about the film. I thought the attempted stick-up/murder scene conveyed the horror and the helplessness of the situation.

I really enjoyed the final confrontation with the Ed Harris character.

The first intimate scene was very nicely scripted, plus you do not often see that act dipicted in major Hollywood movies - even if it was only for a few seconds. Another nit-pick I had was with the FF nudity. I do not mind if it serves the movie, but in this case I found it gratuitous. It did not fit with the movie IMO. It was not necessary, it did not serve the story nor did I find it symbolic for vulnerability. It was there to shock the audience.

 

[Leto Atreides II]

Yeah it's not like Cronenberg would ever want to shock the audience.

Hmm, let's see: Ed Harris with his eye poked out, David Cronenberg directing, and full frontal nudity. How the hell haven't I seen this movie yet?!

 

[jpelg]

Saw this movie yesterday. I think there are too many holes in the storyline to accept it as plausible 'real life'. So what we are left with is asking 'What is this movie telling us?' OR 'What is this movie asking us to question or think?'

Is violence (or the ability to generate it) genetic? Is the only final answer to violence more violence? Is that capacity within all of us? Can we even exist without it? How well do we really know anyone?

I agree that the FF nudity was obviously unnecessary. Even the sex scenes, though integral to the storyline/character development, were uncomfortably just a bit longer than necessary. I did like the way the usual plotline pitfalls were avoided, and situations were resolved much more quickly and decisively, as in real life, rather than being drawn out. You will not be able to predict which way a scene will go.

Definitely a 'button pusher' of a movie that will stir conversation afterward.

 

[gshan]

I also just saw A History of Violence yesterday. Plot holes and unnecessary scenes were my initial feelings also...plus there's the ending...hmm.

Then I read this review today: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/.../50919002/1001
It helped to learn about the director's style. I guess the movie was really just about Tom/Joey character. Not much emphasis on the other characters for support at all?

---

Even with some questions remaining, I also think this is the best movie I've seen so far this year.

 

[Blitzula]

I really thought the movie was extremely overrated. The pacing was too slow, and I didn't buy that second sex scene at all. The violence was overly gory, perhaps to add some excitement/entertainment to the film. The acting was good, although for me-like Ralph Fiennes-Viggo Mortensen is a bland, dry actor outside of the LOTR movies.

I do like independant, foreign, and smaller budget films. But I don't think this would have been nearly as highly rated by critics without the Cronenberg factor.

As for the end, I don't think you're supposed to be able to tell what the mother's reaction was.

For good movies this year, I'd say Crash was a much better and more accurately rated film.

 

[gshan]

I think this further helped me in understanding the movie:

http://imdb.com/title/tt0399146/board/nest/27136868

I'm not going to pay $10 to watch it again, but I will watch it again.

 

[gshan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gshan I think this further helped me in understanding the movie: http://imdb.com/title/tt0399146/board/nest/27136868 I'm not going to pay $10 to watch it again, but I will watch it again.

Wow...I didn't notice ppl on IMDB get really heated in the discussions sometimes. - but all very interesting indeed.

 

[eyeteeth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by virometal One thing I can not get past is the final sex scene. How could a picture perfect Norman Rockwell couple like Tom and Eide engage is such hateful passion? Sure, we knew Tom had it in him, but Edie? Her aggresive streak is evident early as she fends for Tom in the diner and contacts the fuzz, but how could she be aroused by Tom's brute alpha male turn? Perhaps, that is what she had been wanting? After years of loving the gentle Tom, the alpha male was more than welcomed.

I don't know. Maybe. I didn't see it that way at the time. Not terribly common, but not too freaky either. Maybe I've been in a few love hate, break up, get back together relationships.

Quote:

Originally Posted by virometal Then the final scene left me with more questions than answers. It is obvious the kids accepted daddy back with the ceremonial placing of the plate and pushing of the roast. But what was going on in Edie as she raises her head to view the man she no longer knows with tear soaked eyes?

I thought that was simple acceptance. Acceptance of the whole man. The man known and previously unknown-now known. The good and the bad.

I responded to the other thread "What movie did you just see" with this. I didn't include spoilers though.
Quote:

Originally Posted by eyeteeth I liked A History of Violence. I can't give anything away. The acting is very fine by all. Can Ed Harris not act well even if he's something of a cartoon character? A cameo later in the film makes it worth the money (hilarious). I didn't realize at the time that this was a Cronenberg film. There is a sex scene that was a first I think. Not titillating but it was entertaining to hear the complete silence of the audience, except for the sound of a hundred bums shift in their seats!

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyC I did have some problems with it. The establishing scenes of quiet small town life were hokey and clichéd. The bully was just about the worst bully stuff I've ever seen. Real after school special material. I did like it when he got what was coming to him.

Yeah maybe. The "hokey and clichéd" did correspond with the main character who was hokey and clichéd and wasn't very believable as Tom Stall. Later when he fesses up to not being Tom Stall I thought then his "wasn't believable" made sense. But then he wanted to be Tom Stall. Kind of interesting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyC The first scene with the killers would have been more effective if the camera had stopped at the door of the motel office. We did not have to see their handy work. It would have been better left to the imagination.

You've got a point. It could have gone either way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyC There was lots that I liked about the film. I thought the attempted stick-up/murder scene conveyed the horror and the helplessness of the situation. I really enjoyed the final confrontation with the Ed Harris character.

It's suprising that after countless movie situations that are the same it can still have suspense when well done.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyC The first intimate scene was very nicely scripted, plus you do not often see that act dipicted in major Hollywood movies - even if it was only for a few seconds. Another nit-pick I had was with the FF nudity. I do not mind if it serves the movie, but in this case I found it gratuitous.

That was the scene I was refering to in my quote with the audience shifting in their seats. I remember it being longer than a few seconds (I wasn't checking my watch at the time!

). A bit shocking in it's authenticity. I agree with the FF being gratuitous. It always strikes me that way when it's only one gender exposed.

(Which reminds me of a female companion shouting "gratuitous" during Shallow Grave with the view of the woman at the shower and I disagreed because of the unflattering view. Later I was vindicated with an unflattering view of the dead naked drug dealer dude and I shouted "gratuitous!"

)

I loved the finale with William Hurt. Great, hilarious. Slap stick most bloody! That was what made it all worthwhile. The whole thing from the drive into the big city and meeting at the bar to the climax at the mansion. Not sure about the sunrise bathing at the pond though.

 

[Gigabomber]

A bit of an interesting angle on this movie may be found here

 

[shesmylovernow]

The cliche bits were done that way on purpose, as in Lynch's Blue Velvet.

To whoever said the opening scene would have been more effective had it stopped at the office door: I must disagree furiously. He killed a little girl for God's sake, right? Can't get more over the top or exaggerated, right? Think about the rest of the film....it's ALL exaggerated. Every last thing. This is a stylistic decision made by Cronenberg that has gone over many people's heads. People say it's boring or unrealistic or the sex or violence is gratuitous; you're missing the entire point. There's a reason that people who study film love AHOV -- they are naturally more aware of what's going on and what fits where, especially during a first viewing. AHOV won't tell you wha's going on like so many films do; you have to ask why? a lot and piece it together.

As for the ending, think about what Tom says to Edie about her eyes after their first sexual encounter, and then reexamine the final scene and the look she gives him.

 

[eyeteeth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by shesmylovernow gone over many people's heads. People say it's boring or unrealistic or the sex or violence is gratuitous; you're missing the entire point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gigabomber A bit of an interesting angle on this movie may be found here

I did read the Ruthless review before and thought that guy was well off and missed the point or he just insisted on disliking it. I'd ruthlessly reviewed the review (own medicine) and spotted things like "Tom kicks more ass, kills a few thugs, and is rescued from certain death by his son, who has apparently learned how to use a shotgun with great precision in a matter of minutes."

From a realistic angle my recollection is of someone getting shot in the back and the camera cutting to another holding a smoking shotgun without a perspective of distance but it was in a front lawn, it could have been five feet away, hardly sniper requirements.
The realistic angle is wrong though. I thought it was about gestures and meanings. Maybe it was the graphic visuals and mature content that tricked some viewers into going into reality check mode?