Change Your Image
govegove
Reviews
A History of Violence (2005)
I really don't understand what people see in this painfully adolescent film
This movie pretends to address violence and rape in an emotionally and morally complex fashion, but it's just pretend. It's ultimately small-minded and sensationalist. It isn't the intense and disgusting violence that is most disturbing, but it's the adolescent, belittling treatment of the serious psychological issues which surround that violence.
I went to see it on the recommendation of a friend I respect. I'm still not sure how to have a conversation with her about it.
The acting looked like it was done by freshmen on their first day of drama class. Maria Bello needs to go back to acting school. Mortensen was trying to portray a confused guy with difficulty communicating, but the whole "psychological" element didn't come off well. The scenes were written to make convincing acting impossible--they were just so ridiculous. As someone else said, his whole running-with-a-hurt-foot-to-save-his-family thing was just embarrassingly. His stammering in the café to Ed Harris ("My name isn't Joey." "Yes it is.") did zero to make me feel like I was in a real, busy diner, let alone watching two real people talk. The scenes with his son and the bully looked like they were from an episode of The Wonder Years that got axed for being too goofy. When we get to the end, and William Hurt is there as his brother shooting several times at point blank range but missing him, and suddenly the movie tries to get all campy... the whole thing was just lost, lost, lost.
Let me back up here. A History of Violence tries at different points to be a) serious movie, b) a shocking wannabe early-Tarantino, grotesquely-violent-but-it's-okay-because-it's-"deep" movie, and c) a campy, almost Princess Bride type movie near the end, and then d) going for a challenging, serious ending.
It fails at being a serious movie because it is unbelievable and the psychology behind the script has the emotional intelligence of Mickey Mouse.
How does it compare to early Tarantino? Tarantino's Reservoir Dogs made me say "God, I never want to see that again, but I'm glad I saw it once". It was grossly violent, but in a good way--shot characters didn't just disappear, they had a horrible groaning and bleeding persistence for an hour or more. And the dialogue was a brilliant. A History of Violence is a pale, pale rendition of this. We have some really nasty blown-to-bits heads that are squirting and breathing at us. And for what? I couldn't even enjoy a good "ewwww...." Why? Here's the crux of it: A History of Violence raises very serious and complex issues, but deals with them in an adolescent and self-mocking way which is so condescending and belittling that I find it personally offensive. They key scene is where the husband attacks and rapes his wife, but isn't necessarily a bad man, he's just lost and confused. There is gray area here, and it is opened up for us. They almost pulled it off. One spark of brilliance I did see in the film was Mortensen collapsed and confused with his pants down, at the bottom of the stairs. But the overall scene was unrealistic both in the details (there would have been words, she would have screamed his name, said "you're hurting me", said "stop it") and unrealistic in the context of the whole movie's psyche (in other words, his little Jekyll and Hyde thing didn't come off). Furthermore, the campiness of the rest of the movie, and its attempts shock value elsewhere, belittles this effort to seriously confront the gray areas of domestic violence. Watching the movie, I felt in my heart and in my stomach the rape scene boiled down to sensationalism. You can't be so idiotic and then try to engage the audience seriously on such a touchy subject. If you wanted to confront this issue, then don't be half-arsed. Make the characters complex, not caricatures. Make the son holler when his brain-splattered dad tries to hug him. In real life, compassion might come to other family members for a violent father / husband. But in this movie, the compassion wasn't earned, it was forced. And it felt like being at a family gathering and being told to hug the same uncle that molested your younger sister. I won't do it.
I myself was assaulted sexually by a friend, and I learned to have compassion for my attacker--even if I didn't forgive him. I would welcome a movie that could deal with this. But instead of making Tom Stall a complex character, it creates a faux complexity. It goes beyond a sitcom mentality only by a step: it says with emotional scriptedness, "You will feel conflicted here, but still be empathetic." In trying to force a candied sympathy with Tom Stall when the performance was too cheap to be believed, and in bringing about a resolution that is too easy, this movie comes close to glorifying the violence and rape that it tries to address seriously.
It becomes unredeemable when it tries to become cute, clever, and funny near the end. William Hurt plays Billy Crystal playing a mobster. And then, suddenly, we're supposed to be deadly serious again. If the movie can't even take itself seriously, how am I supposed to? This movie was a good idea. If it had more believable situations, if it had decent acting, and if it could take itself halfway as seriously as it asks you to take it, it could have been a real contender. Sometimes were hints of greatness, and the possibility of a powerful psychological piece was there.
But it fails. Don't believe the hype. Have a good talk with your friend instead. Or watch Bowling for Columbine.
The Day After (1983)
It's later than you think
If you think this movie's theme is outdated, think again. The Doomsday Clock has moved ahead three times since the end of the Cold War. From a press release: "Chicago, February 27, 2002: Today, the Board of Directors of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists moves the minute hand of the `Doomsday Clock,' the symbol of nuclear danger, from nine to seven minutes to midnight, the same setting at which the clock debuted 55 years ago. Since the end of the Cold War in 1991, this is the third time the hand has moved forward."
I watched this movie again a few weeks ago, after seeing it on TV as a ten-year-old kid. While some of the story-lines were painful (e.g. the soon-to-be-wed farmer's daughter whining when dad caught her sneaking off to have sex) this was a well-done movie showing the effects of nuclear war on middle america.
While maybe you can knock this for it's dramatic quality, I think it holds together as an honest story. Some of the criticisms I've read below don't hold together. The story *is* clear about the effects that happen at different distances from ground-zero. The Russians nailed Kansas because of the missile silos there. And it is honest about human nature: in the aftermath lots of people help, like the doctor, but others kill for food or land and there's plenty of panic and anger to go around.
This movie made an impression on me when I saw it as a kid and also now as an adult. And for those out there knocking it--remember this: The Day After made the people of the United States realize what kind of horrible toys their leaders are dealing with. It sparked the movement against nukes. We need a similar movement today--because people have forgotten, or don't think nuclear weapons are a threat. But the United States is now researching new, tactical nukes which, if smaller, will still result in fallout poisoning people unlucky to be in the neighborhood. Just like the kids in Iraq that get to breath the Uranium dust from our tank-busting weapons.
I wish we had more movies like this, and like _Traffic_, that bring painful realities to life and make people think.