A History of Violence

 3/4

Starring: Viggo Mortensen, Maria Bello, Ed Harris, Ashton Holmes, William Hurt, Heidi Hayes

Rated R for Strong Brutal Violence, Graphic Sexuality, Nudity, Language and Some Drug Use

The deeper you look into "A History of Violence," the more you'll find.  It's a rare thing these days to find a movie that works on more than one level, but this is one of them.  The film asks questions about identity, violence and human nature in ways that other films don't bother to consider.

"A History of Violence" is many things: a mystery, a film noir, a crime drama, an action flick.  Ironically, the film centers around one very simple question: who is Tom Stall?

Tom Stall (Mortensen) is a mild-mannered family man living in small-town Indiana.  He owns a diner in the center of town, has a loving wife Edie (Bello) and two children.  One day, his diner is held up by two thugs.  Tom leaps into action and kills the criminals.  He's hailed as a hero, but it's a label that the soft spoken Tom doesn't want.  Soon after, his life is about to get a lot more complicated.  A creepy looking man who goes by the name of Fogarty (Harris) walks into the diner after the shooting.  Only. he calls Tom by a different name: Joey Cusack.  Tom tells Fogarty that he is mistaken, but the man is convinced that the diner owner is in reality a brutal mobster.  Who is telling the truth?  More to the point, what does it mean for everyone else?

There are many positive qualities about "A History of Violence," but none are as praiseworthy as director David Cronenberg's sleight of hand.  I didn't know if Tom Stall was really Joey Cusack.  Given the rules of narrative for a film like this, that's difficult to pull off.  Credit must go to both Cronenberg and his lead actor, Viggo Mortensen, who is as far away from Aragorn as you're likely to find.  Mortensen's role is tricky.  He must allow the audience to interpret his actions in both ways without leaning too far into either direction.  He's very good here.

Let's set aside the obvious talking points about the film and discuss it in philosophical musings.  How are we ourselves?  What is our nature?  Is it what we do, or what we say we are?  Clearly, Tom is an upstanding family man, but what, if anything, do his violent actions say about him?  Is he a violent person, someone in the wrong place at the wrong time, or something else?  How does what he sees himself as change the answer to this question.

Look deeper.  How does the possibility that Tom might be a vicious gangster change how people see him? Edie loves her husband, but the possibility that he is a cold-blooded killer like Fogarty terrifies her.  And attracts her (note their infamous sex scene on the stairs?  Is this S&M?).  And what about his son Jack (Holmes), who, after learning that his father took action, decides to give a bully a taste of his own medicine?  Has Tom's capacity for violence inspired him, or merely awoken what was already there?

The film is at its best when it is posing questions, letting the audeiece consider them, and then answering them.  Unfortunately, the film adds in a protracted twenty minutes that has no purpose other than to give William Hurt some screen time.  This sequence, which I will not reveal, doesn't add anything to the story or our understanding of Tom.  In truth, it's pretty much pointless.

On a technical level, the film takes some missteps.  The cinematography by Peter Suschitzky is dark and muddled, limiting the atmosphere and our ability to get involved in the story.    Of greater concern are the action scenes.  Cronenberg is not an action director, and these sequences are surprisingly lifeless.  Oh there's a lot of blood and gore (Cronenberg has always embraced the red stuff throughout his career), but they are filmed in such a way that they lack any energy or urgency.

Still, flaws aside, "A History of Violence" is compelling viewing.  It's just not as good as its reputation suggests.