If you haven't tapped into the hype, David Cronenberg's new film, "A History of Violence" has been marketed as a crowd-pleasing psychological drama about identity as a conscious construct as well as a natural extrapolation of personal history. The gap between entertainment and "artiness" is tough to bridge, and movies that successfully strive for these polarities tend to receive Oscar nods. But, now that "A History of Violence" is out in theatres and no longer a phantom of marketing, its integrity as an artistic statement, as well as its potential to be absorbed by the mainstream can be assessed.
Without reservation, "A History of Violence" succeeds on both fronts. In its opening weekend, the film has brought in $8.2 million, landing it as the number one R rated movie in America. Not bad considering that it frankly depicts jarring scenes of fatal violence and rough sex. I smell an Oscar brewing.
"A History of Violence" centers on Tom Stall (Viggo Mortensen), a gentle family man and humble owner of a diner in Millbrook, Ind. Husband to a beautiful, loving wife, Edie (Maria Bello), and two well-behaved children, Jack (Ashton Holmes) and Sarah (Heidi Hayes), Tom's life is a true manifestation of traditional American values. However, everything changes when Tom's diner is robbed at gunpoint by two merciless killers. Upon the threat of danger, Tom reacts quickly, and effortlessly kills both men — establishing him as a hero to the media and his family. In fact, the next day, Tom's diner bustles with customers eager to congratulate him for his heroic deed.
But what seems like a valiant act of defense may be a disturbing portal to Tom's past and, in effect, his essence. The situation complicates upon the arrival of Philadelphia mobster Mr. Fogherty (Ed Harris) and an entourage of slickly dressed men. Mr. Fogherty approaches Tom in his diner as if they've shared an intimate past. He calls Tom by the name "Joey," and accuses him of a history of murder and betrayal, claiming that Joey tried to wrench his eye out with barbed wire after killing a few of his men. Tom responds that Mr. Fogherty is mistaken and that he has never even been to Philadelphia, but Mr. Fogherty's persistence and unshakeable confidence plant the seed of suspicion. Mr. Fogherty poignantly asks how Tom is so good at killing people, which spurs an intriguing exploration of Tom's true identity.
Ultimately, "A History of Violence" broaches the concept of identity as both a moldable construct and as a fixed essence. Therefore, the degree to which the movie succeeds rides on its ability to portray both facets of identity, which can be reduced to a comparison of the scenes of violence and the depiction of traditional family values.
The scenes of violence are portrayed in a spare, primitive fashion. When dispatching of the robbers, Tom reacts so quickly and mechanically that it's difficult to even digest what happens, let alone believe that a small-town man of humble origins would be able to pull off such a feat. Later, Jack acts with the same ferocity and jarring competency when he beats up two school bullies. These scenes interact to suggest this violent ability is an extension of nature and not a product of nurture.
Cronenberg developed these scenes by watching self-defense videos. He was amazed by the intimacy of defense techniques that requires one to get very close to an instigator in order to render him harmless. Concordantly, Cronenberg used a 27-millimeter wide-angle lens to bring the audience into the action, which enhances the realism of the violence.
The depiction of family values is staged with the same attention to detail and intimacy as the violence. Millbrook, Ind., and the Stall residence are the structure in which Tom fixes his identity. The mise en scene is alive with little flourishes that suggest good nature and an innocence of being — best exemplified by the final scene in which Tom arrives home to a dinner of meatloaf, potatoes, a yellow vegetable and a green. Not to mention that the town's church seems to be the nexus of the community.
The success of the film also depends on Viggo Mortensen's performance. In order to make his character provocative, Viggo has to fit within both disparate schemes. He does so brilliantly. There's no reason to question his purity apart from the scenes in which he is forced to act in defense of his life and his family's safety. But after a bloody showdown in his front yard, we can see the madness in Tom's eyes as he approaches his son, which makes you wonder who Tom really is and what would be the appropriate way to identify him.
Grade: A/B
