Fact 1. I have only seen one other David Cronenberg movie before A History of Violence and that was 1986's The Fly. I found my weird director of choice with the first name of David (Lynch) and I've stuck with him - although I have many Cronenberg films in queue on BigPond. Anyway, I had read enough about him and his movies though to sort of understand what they're all about.
Now, he really seems to have plunged into the mainstream with A History of Violence, which bears all the characteristics of a less-sicko version of that other David's Blue Velvet. What does lurk under the facades of simple suburbian life? In Velvet the catalyst was a murder mystery, 10 years later in Violence it is scarily the same. Are directors such as Lynch and Cronenberg trying to tell us something? Well, that's the thing - they both leave you asking plenty of questions. After viewing Violence i could just tell that there was much more that Cronenberg and writer Josh Olsen (despite what Adam K thinks) were trying to tell us.
Luckily for us, they decide to let us get to that after our viewing experience and for the moment we are left with a cunning and effective thriller. If there is anything more that this film demonstrates it is economy. Note to all current directors of essentially any genre - Your movie does not need to be over two hours to get your message across. For that I am grateful. It is so nice to see an adult movie that is done in 95 minutes. Spielberg should take note. I bought up Munich just earlier when discussing V for Vendetta. Both of those films failed to mix their political messages with the conventions of their genres, and here is another place that Violence succeeds. It's message isn't political (although who really knows, there may be some of that in there), but it's a message well and good and Cronenberg really merged it well with the conventions of a thriller.
There's also that other area that the film succeeds in - ya know, the more traditional stuff like acting and writing and music. Viggo is suitably everyman, while Maria Bello continues her ascention into fully fledged great actress with a searing performance as Edie Stall - the wife who cottons on just a little too late and can't deal with the truth once she does find out. Ashton Holmes too makes a fine impression as the eldest Stall child. Young Heidi Hayes completes the family Stall. All give performances that feel slightly off-centre - but that's what makes them great. Because a lot of History feels strangely B-grade in the 1970s horror movie sort of B-grade. Many of those films had suburbianites terrorised just like they are in this movie. I think it works, however it could've gone either way. The earlier scenes of the whole family also have a bit of a Brady Bunch vibe to them. I can't really explain that one, but I know what I mean. I hope at least someone out there can also understand that.
On the villain side of things, Ed Harris is wonderfully creepy as the one-eyed Fogarty. William Hurt's Oscar-nominated performance is particularly delightful though, part-drunk-part-pantomime performance. How nifty is it that he got an Oscar nomination from this? Sorta speaks more than I could say, that's for sure.
The violence is indeed quite graphic but not glaringly so. Remember, I said up there that the movie has a whiff of B-grade '70s horror, well the violence and gore is straight out of that time. The sex scenes too are... intriguing. Those must've been awkward to film, huh? It's interesting to watch how the dynamics of that relationship change whenever sex and violence is involved.
The music here is wonderful. Starting out perky and cheerful and, yes, rooted in horror tradition. The editing is supurb. As I mentioned at the start, the film is wonderfully paced and controlled and all of that at under 100minutes! How about that opening scene, too. That was intense.
Overall, I think the film was wonderfully made; however I wasn't as instantly brought into this as I do when someone such as David Lynch treads similar waters. I don't really know how else to put it into words. It's a minor quibble, really but something that nagged me from the start (well, after the opening scene). I wasn't as instantly hooked. I wasn't as instantly brought into this world as I probably wished I had have been. of course, I'm going to need to rewatch the film (it's theatrical run is near ended now so it should be out on DVD in a couple of months) and soak it in again. It may get boosted up a grade when I know what to expect. For now, I give it a B+, but know that that is a very high B+, on the verge of an A-, and after a second viewing it could go up. I am a person who usually forms very solid opinions of things upon one viewing (not like Dave Poland who needed 5 theatrical viewings to really love Walk the Line, i wish I had the opportunity to do that - idiot) but something like this can be so topsy-turvy.
So, yes, for now... B+. it's definitely the best B+ of the movies I gave B+ to for 2005! Sorry if I disappointed some people. Frowny faces abound.
6 comments:
I admit that I have an irrational peevishness with Josh Olsen. It is partly due to that article he wrote about how Brokeback Mountain should "just deal with" losing, as he was just happy to be there, partly due to the fact that (judging by things said on the DVD) in this original script, Edie Stall was not nearly as rounded out or powerful, partly his own demeaner, as demonstrated by his comments on DVD features as well as aforementioned article, and partly the fact that he got nominated while Cronenberg, Mortenson, and Bello didn't. I know the deeper issues in the film started with the script, but they seemed like they would've been handled clumsily in most hands.
Bottom line, the guy just rubs me the wrong way. I just find him annoying. Cronenberg is fuckin' cool, though. I should probably amend my review.
I myself am now maybe doubting the "A" review. It's a hard film to really nail down one's own opinion of, cause it's just so shifty. But it's the moments that get me. So much is punched into these moments that I just can't help but think of it as cinematic mastery. For example, when Viggo looks into his son's eyes after Fogerty's killed... it's just chilling. His face, that music, the cumulative impact... it just floored me. It feels so epic. But then other times I think of the whole thing and I'm like "really? I dunno..." Very weird reactions, I've had.
I realised another thing that rubbed me the wrong way (as you put it) about the movie. The whole movie is a bluff in that we're meant to think Tom Stall is just an ordinary family man yet, as we know, it turns out he is not.
So wouldn't a man such as Tom flinch a little at the thought of these men coming back into his life.
It's like how in Vera Drake only Imelda Staunton knew what her character was doing and the family was finding out as the viewers did. Well, it felt like Viggo mustn't have known his character would actually turn out to be a mobster because Fogarty's men arriving in town would spark something.
Although I suppose on looking back, the scene where he runs home all that way demonstrates that. But his face in the first scene just didn't give me the impression that he was and while I suppose that's a general conceit of the film, it feels a bit disrespectful on their half. I dunno. I can't really express it better. But, still, I really liked it. There were individual moments of A brilliance. But overall I give it a B+ still (for now)
I'm not sure what you mean about how the film was bluffing... I think the whole point was that he always passed for this innocent family man while in fact he was this mobster. I always thought of it as a metaphor for how no one is really innocent of the violence, since we're all built on that, so I had no problem with the film wanting us to buy into that. But still, some of the way it fits together just feels a bit too... something... like I could see the wheels turning in way, but strangely that worked for me. It was like Cronenberg was saying, "look what I've done with this script" in a totally self-conscious way, but I sort of liked that... like I said, it was this totally artificial aura created my the music (so underrated) grounded by the organic performances that C. brought out (particularly in Bello) that made it great for me. But still, seeing the wheels turning is weird.
I am still definitely in the BBM camp, in any case. "A" all the way. It just totally works. Transcendence. I just got my DVD today and am watching it right now.
You know, it's funny, but this movie went all the way from A- (first viewing) to B- (2nd viewing) for me. It's like the film's tonal inconsistencies (sp??) became more glaring as I rewatched it. It's as if Cronenberg was attempting to achieve a Lynchian pull, kinda like "Blue Velvet" like you say in your review, but ends up with nothing. There are some very odd scenes in this film that seem to have no discernable pull to them, and I honestly think Cronenberg is just not comfortable in mainstream territory (even if its deceptively mainstream, like here). And it's visually unappealing... the cinematography is barely there, and there's no sense of atmosphere. Anyway, it's strange, because at first I kinda loved this movie. But now... I dunno. I still like the violent bits, though. He's good at that ;) Oh and Maria and Viggo rock.
Well I admit that I'll take Lynch over Cronenberg anyday. Though they are both much-needed auterial forces.
I suppose it doesn't help the "what lurks behind the white picket fence" idea that Blue Velvet used to such great effect had kind of worn itself out. Especially after stuff like American Beauty, ya know.
I can't really put it much better with the whole bluffing thing. I just think that if I was Tom Stall and after all those years saw Fogarty I would do something. Just a flinch of the face of something, ya know. And so it did sort of lure me into this "he really is just a guy" thing and then it turns out he's a mobster. It felt sort of cheapening. Like, it was relying on a cheap gimmick to lure us in. I can't put it much better.
But I'm making it sound like I didn't like it. Cause as I've said, i did. A lot!
Post a Comment