A History of Violence

Tonight was my second viewing of A History of Violence (2005), and I have extremely mixed feelings. As a thriller it's two-thirds a great movie, sabotaged by a lame ending. As a mediation on violence, it's pretentious and flat. I leave it up to the viewer on which level they want to take it.

Tom Stall (Viggo Mortensen) is a mild-mannered diner owner in rural Indiana. His life gets turned upside down when two serial killers (Stephen McHattie and Greg Bryk) try to hold up his diner. Tom kills both men, making him a hero but leaving his wife Edie (Maria Bello) and family shocked by his actions. Even bigger surprises are in store when disfigured gangster Carl Fogarty (Ed Harris) rolls into town, claiming Tom is actually Joey Cusack, a member of the Philadelphia mob. Might it be true? You tell me.

A History of Violence's plot comes from a million other films, from Act of Violence and Straw Dogs to various Hitchcock films and countless Westerns. But David Cronenberg is not content with being a well-done "mistaken identity" film, oh no, it has to be a grand statement on the propensity of humans towards violence etc. The result is a film as schizophrenic and troubled as its protagonist, ostensibly examining the effects and appeal of violence while unwittingly celebrating it.

As a thriller, the movie is mostly good, though the plot strains credulity. The story and characters are, initially grounded firmly in reality: the violence is gruesome, the set-pieces tense and the protagonists sharply-drawn. Early scenes with the Stalls show them as a believable family unit, and the first appearances of Fogarty's crew are genuinely unnerving. When Tom's identity comes into question, there's some great family drama: if Tom's been lying about his identity for twenty years, where does that leave his wife and kids? The stairway sex scene is just this side of bad taste, but proves more explosive and raw than all the shootouts.

But Cronenberg really drops the ball in the last half-hour. Tom's showdown with mob boss Richie (William Hurt) is just bad: poorly-acted, cartoonishly-written, and culminating in an unlikely killing spree worthy of Grand Theft Auto, it's impossible to take this sequence seriously. When everything else is so measured and down-to-earth, what are we supposed to make out of this cartoon crap?

This scene points up the main problem, that A History of Violence isn't worth much as an "intellectual" work. Filmmakers from Hitchcock to Lynch have picked the bones of small-town America clean, so it's doubtful too many viewers will be shocked by the story's twists. Cronenberg makes the violence very grisly, but it's still enjoyable when psychos and gangsters are the victims. The parallel plot with son Jack (Ashton Holmes) and a school bully is lame, climaxing in a beating scene straight out of A Christmas Story. The off-screen musings by Cronenberg and certain critics about the story as "Darwinism at its purest" are so much hot air: any deep message Cronenberg wants to express is negated by his own work. Instead of subverting cliche, Violence unwittingly embraces it.

Viggo Mortensen (Lord of the Rings) tackles a difficult role with aplomb. At first, he's so milquetoast it's impossible to believe he's Joey, but when pressed he becomes a completely different person. Maria Bello is equally solid, shocked by yet perversely attracted to her husband's "new" identity. Ed Harris adds another menacing psychopath to his resume, and Stephen McHattie (Geronimo: An American Legend) and Greg Bryk make a disturbing impression. William Hurt inexplicably received an Oscar nomination for his five minutes of cartoon ham.

A History of Violence has its virtues, but it's too flawed to be a great film and too shallow to take seriously. Then again, I thought Cronenberg's Crash was a grotesque fetish video posing as profundity, so what the hell do I know?