Stoopid Stuff

Movie Time

I checked out "A History of Violence" last night. I've got a few quibbles, but it's the best movie I've seen since "Master and Commander". I had read a number of posts about "A History of Violence" in the blogoshpere, and my expectations were established incorrectly. I had read about the "ambiguities" in the film, and got the impression that it was unclear whether Tom had a criminal past or if it was truly a case of mistaken identity. But oviously, that was not the case. Cronenberg makes it clear before the film is half over that Tom had actually been Joey.

But in fact, this is a film about redemption. Joey WANTED to become Tom. And Tom is who he became. He wasn't bloodthirsty, he wasn't looking for trouble. He loved his new life and his family. Just because he was forced by circumstance to use the skills he had developed in his other life, it was not who he was. I especially like that message. You can become someone different, something better. Not faking it, not pretending, but actually change. I can't understand why there should be any doubt about this--it's apparent. Part of the dynamic of the film is Tom's family doubting who he was. They had known him for something approaching twenty years, and yet these events made them doubt what they knew him to be. I don't know. I would think that twenty years of day-in day-out experience should carry at least as much weight as one brief out-of-character moment.

As to the quibbles, I really only have two. I thought the film very much glossed over the psychological and emotional consequences of the killing of Fogarty by Jack. There was going to be a series of reactions, from the high of taking a life to the depression and self-loathing that can follow. But mainly, I have to question the approach Tom takes to personal combat. In all three events, he faces armed killers with empty hands, counting on his hand-to-hand skills and close combat capabilities to appropriate a weapon. In the first instance, he had no choice, as he had no way to know what was going to happen. In the second case, he put down the shotgun when they showed they had his son. OK, that makes sense, and he certainly wasn't going to go with them. But I'd have been more comfortable with the outcome if he had given himself some other "edge" before the confrontation. A meat cleaver. A sock full of quarters and tied. Something with which he could have quickly disabled the gunmen. But the third even, in Philly. That was the one that bothered me most. Going in, he could have acquired a weapon or two and controlled the circumstances of the meeting a little bit. But once again, starting barehanded, he kills the bad guys without sustaining any serious wounds. But who knows, maybe he was that good.

posted by mikey @ 10:56 AM