A history of Violence

Welcome to Cronenberg's latest flick. This is the guy that brought us such twisted shit as The Naked Lunch, Crash, Spider and Existenz. Naked Lunch was the first movie I ever saw in the theater alone, as I couldn't find anyone who'd agree to watch it with me. I remember walking around Oxford for two hours afterwards feeling like I was watching the world through a video screen, with the sound turned right down but the gain right up. I must have looked like a complete twat drunk, sat there in an Oxford cocktail bar with the same drink for an hour then walking out leaving it untouched. Probably just aswell I was in a cocktail bar and not a pub. Less chance of having my teeth knocked out for staring at people like they weren't really there. A thoroughly bizzare experience.

Cronenburg's adaptation of nutty narco-soaked Billy Burrough's famous drug addled novel affected me in a way that no other movie ever had. Indeed that experience remains somewhat unique for me, something I'm not altogether unhappy about. Cronenberg's movies since have all been based on ideas twisted from the norm to one extent or other and its here that a History of Violence breaks new ground for him. It is, in essence, a pretty straight story of one man's past catching up with another man. There's no altered reality, no waking up at bus stops half way through in an unscripted moment of lucidity and positively no sphincter fetish (although possibly the Director's cut will correct this). Where Cronengerg gets his kicks here is from playing with the central question that the movie poses; are the two men separate or not, what does that mean exactly and what are the implications of these answers to those around him(/them). The only spoiler I'll give you beyond what you see in the trailer is the question that our well meaning but somewhat hapless (aren't they always) local sherif asks Tom Stalle (our central character, Vig Mortenson) early in the film, just after the mob (Ed Harris and his 3 stooges) have turned up claiming that Tom is infact a Philidelphia mob killer called Joey, "are you in some sort of witness protection programme?" This is only 5 or 10 minutes into the movie and is a clear indication from our dear director that, whatever Tom's answer, the real answer is no and that therein lies the rub.

Twisted, morally questionable and certainly obsessed with the sphincter in all it's forms (and uses), you just know that you're not gonna get a straight up witness protection / gangster revenge flick out of Cronenberg but, actually, you almost do. As I said, the central question is physically; are these 2 people the same and philisophically; what does this mean?

Acting-wise there are three "made" actors in this film. Vig Mortenson as our central hometown boy Tom, Ed Harris as the Philly mobster with a dicky eye and a massive itch to scratch and William Hurt as another Philly gangster, but you'll have to watch it to find out which one. For my money William Hurt gives the most subtle performance as a failing gangster whose boots are a little big for his feet. It seems that in the underworld, as in life, we tend to be promoted to our own level of incompetence. Ed gives a competent turn as mobster (Carl Fogarty), managing to scare the local community, particularly Tom's wife, out of their collective wits. It's not a mammoth performance by any means, but you certainly get the impression that this guy is completely confident in the strength of his position, which is what's called for by the role. Vig Mortenson certainly makes for a believable hometown family man, the question in my mind was, could he be a believable mobster in alter-ego mode? I must admit that I wasn't completely convinced by the answer that the climax of the movie asked me to accept. Other main characters were the Sherrif and Tom's family. The Sherrif, well, you can order one of them straight out of the box. The family I think did pretty well. The teenage son had on balance the major role, his struggle with idolising his father's non-violent approach to life being blown apart by Tom's heroic foiling of a coffee shop robbery, resulting in the killing of the two robbers, that starts the movie certainly has you understanding his position and confusion, if not actually feeling it. Tom's wife's struggle is with who she thought she'd married, confusion over what she's now faced with and which she prefers. Her minor roleplay fetish showcased at the beginning of the movie is not to be dismissed. I found this fascinating, but sadly the role wasn't really given enough time to fully explore the questions being posed. The younger (about six years old, I guess) daughter plays the innocent bystander, never really cottenning on to the fact that any confusion or problem might exist. Fluff, but the glue that could ultimately hold the family together, reminding all of the ties that bind (sorry, I really wanted a better turn of phrase there...)

Is this the new Cronenberg? Honestly, I hope not. I enjoyed this film, and recommend a viewing, but the subject matter is more Coen Brothers or Raimi (a la Simple plan) territory in my opinion. And I think either of those 2 would have done it better than Cronenberg. From Cronenberg, I'd like something heavier on the fantastical, tougher on the brain and with a pinch of sphincter fetish, just to let me know it's him. And if you see me in a cocktail bar staring into space, that's because I got what I wanted but Bubble refused to go with me to the theatre.

Bomber out

/edit; I note he's working on London Fields atm, so I may get my wish after all. Cronenberg / Martin Amis? sounds like a match made in, errrr. I'm gonna write to them both telling them to make Dead Babies next...