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 - #147: Notorious

Alfred Hitchcock’s Notorious (1946) has many of the master director’s signature elements: spies, lies, a handsome leading man, a domineering mother, and of course a MacGuffin. As it is set after World War II the villains are logically former Nazis, but the plot is so tense in many scenes that it remains an effective thriller to this day. It also bears a huge influence on John Woo’s Mission Impossible 2 , which retains plot elements and similar dialogue, but of course has more explosions than all of Hitchcock’s films put together. Notorious is so well-made it can be studies in film classes, which is exactly what I did while taking a course on Hollywood Cinema 1930-1960 during the summer of 2009 at the University of British Columbia. As this is Hitchcock we are talking about here, there are subtler things to analyze than explosions in Notorious , no offense to the skills of Mr. John Woo. Famously there is a kissing scene between stars Cary Grant and Ingrid Bergman that seemingly las...

Empire Magazine (2008) Greatest Movies List - #91: Return of the Jedi

If you want someone to give you death stares, tell a die-hard Star Wars fan the original trilogy is not perfect. I am however going to take a risk and write that if there is one major flaw with Return of the Jedi (1983) is a lack of imagination when it comes to the central plot. After the good guys blow up the Death Star in the first movie, the bad guys are almost done building a brand new one, which of course needs to be destroyed again in more or less the same way. Richard Marquand may be directing this time, but it was still George Lucas writing. Plot hole aside, as a kid you can’t help but have fun as the good guys join forces with a tribe of living teddy bears to get the job done. Like many people in their early 30s, I was introduced to the first Star Wars trilogy by my parents who had recorded the movies, commercials included, when they were showing one night on TV. Upon first viewing, a few things stick out in the mind of a young boy watching Return of the Jedi such as:...

Empire Magazine (2008) Greatest Movies List - #85: Blue Velvet

Exactly how do you describe a David Lynch movie? He is one of the few directors whose style is so distinctive that his last name has become an adjective. According to Urban Dictionary, the definition of Lynchian is: “having the same balance between the macabre and the mundane found in the works of filmmaker David Lynch.” To see a prime example of that adjective film lovers need look no further than Lynch’s Blue Velvet (1986), which does indeed begin in the mundane before slowly sinking in macabre violence. My first introduction to the world of David Lynch was through his ground breaking, but unfortunately interrupted, early 1990s TV series Twin Peaks . This was one of the first television shows to grab viewers with a series-long mystery: who killed Laura Palmer? A mix of soap opera, police procedural, and the supernatural, it is a unique show that showed the darkness hidden in suburbia and remains influential to this day. Featuring Kyle MacLachlan as an FBI investigator with a l...