Skip to main content

Empire List #448: A History of Violence

Most of the time movie stars sell movies. On rare occasions, a director has such a unique body of work that he is the selling point. David Cronenberg is one of those exceptions. He has created some of the most psychologically disturbing horror movies to play in Canada and around the world much to the pride/shame of critics. Some of his movies feature monsters that infect you from within and turn you into an abomination. With “A History of Violence”, his first collaboration with actor Viggo Mortensen, he shows the horrible things people can do without the help of monsters.

This movie came out in late September of 2005, just as the summer movie season ended and the fall season began. A perfect release date, since it is definitely not popcorn entertainment, but it does have enough solid performances for award considerations. I saw it on the big screen, during one of those rare times when a movie was released in English in Quebec City. I remember being surprised by the violence. I don’t mean by how much violence there was, but by how realistically painful it looked. It is not stylized or exaggerated it is simply accurate. When you pummel a guy’s face with your fist, blood won’t spray out like a fountain, but the guy will be lying on the ground in pain barely able to breathe.

The film opens in Millbrook, Indiana, a small American town where nothing much happens and people are fine with that. Local restaurant owner Tom Stall (Mortensen) has a beautiful wife (Maria Bello) and two children. His idyllic world begins to shatter when two armed men try to rob his place during closing hour. Its clear the thugs intend to hurt people, maybe even kill everyone inside. To everybody’s surprise, Tom springs into action and brutally kills the robbers. The patrons are shocked to see their mild-mannered friend covered in blood, but who cares? He saved their lives and is now a local hero.

Tom’s heroism attracts the attention of the media, which in turn causes the arrival of more dangerous characters. A sharp-dressed man called Fogarty (Ed Harris) walks into Tom’s restaurant wearing dark sunglasses. Fogarty claims Tom is in fact Joey Cusack, a career criminal from Philadelphia. Tom denies this, prompting Fogarty to take off his sunglasses and reveal a painful scar on the left side of his face. Now there’s a man with a history of violence written all over him.

Fogarty and his men begin following Tom’s family to convince him to go back to Philly where he has unfinished business. At the mall Fogarty asks Tom’s wife if she really knows her husband. That’s an interesting question. Just how did Tom manage to kill two armed men if he had never done it before?

His son Jack (Ashton Holmes) also begins asking questions. His dad tells him he shouldn’t fight at school. But, if Tom used violence to defend himself, when is it O.K for him to use it? Just exactly where do you draw the line?


Mortensen does a great job of playing a man who seems very calm and reassuring, but can turn into a killer in a flash. Bello is equalling strong as a mother whose family is slowly falling apart around her. She thought her life was perfect, but it would seem it was all a lie.

Hands down the best performance belongs to William Hurt, who plays head mobster Richie Cusack. Hurt is only on-screen for a total of eight minutes, yet he was rightfully nominated for an Academy Award. He plays a mobster who is charismatic, friendly, and quite frankly hilariously off-kilter. Yet he has no problem with shooting one of his own goons when they fail to get a job done.

This movie poses disturbing questions about violence and the violence within people. When bad people use violence against good people, it is unjustifiable. But what about when good people blow bad people away with a shotgun? Is the good person now just as bad as the dead guy?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Empire Magazine (2008) Greatest Movies List - #49: Evil Dead 2

What do you get when you mix buckets of fake blood, creative camera operators, the humour of the Three Stooges, and a man with the most recognizable chin in Hollywood? You get Evil Dead II (1987), the horror classic that somehow manages to remake the original in the first 15 minutes and yet feel entirely original. Even though it is mostly set in a cabin in the woods, that staple location in the horror genre, it feels like a roller coaster ride. This is especially true once the film's hero, the scrappy Ash Williams, embraces the madness by arming himself with a sawed-off shotgun and attaching a chainsaw where his hand used to be. "Groovy" indeed. This gore-soaked franchise has had a long run, starting off with one low-budget movie directed by a young Sam Raimi and then growing into two sequels, a remake, comic books and a TV show with three seasons. My starting point was the third entry, Army of Darkness, which moves the action to the Middle Ages with the same

Empire Magazine (2008) Greatest Movies List - #97: Reservoir Dogs

One of the most surprising things about Quentin Tarantino’s debut film Reservoir Dogs (1992) is the fact that it has never been adapted for the stage. They will make a show out of Beauty and the Beast , Monty Python and the Holy Grail , and even Spider-Man , but somehow a movie in which most of the action takes place in a warehouse has never made it to Broadway? In any case, this was the movie that announced the arrival of the insatiable film fan that could regurgitate everything he had learned watching movies at the video store into stories filled with sudden bursts of violence, sharp-dressed characters, awesome soundtracks, and crackling dialogue.   Since this violent piece of American cinema came out at a time when I was still learning basic math in elementary school there was no way I would watch this on the big screen. However as the years went by it became a cult classic, and even a classic of the independent movies genre, and was re-released on special edition DVD for its

Empire Magazine (2008) Greatest Movies List - #102: The Hustler

Robert Rossen’s The Hustler (1961) is proof that any sport can be used for good cinematic drama even if that sport is pool. Although this is not a game that involves a massive sport arena and bloody boxing gloves, things can get dramatically interesting if the monetary stakes are high, and visually arresting if the filmmakers shoot from the right angle. It also helps a lot if the man putting his money on the table is played by a young Paul Newman in a career-breaking role. Prior to watching the film I had a vague idea of the meaning of the word “hustling” and a rather passive interest in the game of pool. It’s a fun game to play if you are having a couple of nachos and chicken wings on a Friday evening with friends, but I didn’t see it as a spectator sport. Watching The Hustler in the classics section of Netflix two years ago was a bit of an education since it shows the sport as a way of life for some people, and a huge source of revenue for big time gamblers. Newman star as