The History of Violence--Pretentiously Titled but Entertaining

This pretentiously-titled, critically-acclaimed film by David Cronenberg depicts the way that the violent past of Tom Stall (played by Viggo Mortensen) catches up with him in small-town Indiana in an unexpectedly gruesome way. Critics raved over the film (which has an 87% aggregate rating on Rotten Tomatoes) because they see it, in the words of one critic, as a "sublime psychological thriller." But when you leave aside, for a moment, some of the superb acting (Viggo Mortensen; William Hurt as his older brother Richie; Edie Stall, Tom's wife (Maria Bello), and teenage son Jack (Ashton Holmes)), you ask what is the "message" of the film. Is it trying to explore a general question about violence in our lives, as the title might suggest? Is it interested in probing the ambiguity of heroism? The fact that we all have a past that we would love to bury? The way that violence escalates if it isn't reined in at the beginning? While all of these themes are touched on by the movie, none is really explored. It seems that the Kronenberg's major interest is simply in unfolding the checkered past of the clean-cut, courteous, Indiana diner-owner, Tom Stall. That, indeed, will be my conclusion--the movie is entertaining but carries no real "meaning" to it. Well, before we get too far in analyzing questions, let's say a few things about the flow of the movie.

Plot Summary

Tom Stall owns a diner in the nondescript town of Millbrook, IN. He is portrayed as a handsome, low-key family man, who enjoys his family and intimacy with his beautiful wife Edie. Two empty-pocketed and foul-tempered murderers were passing through town and decided to stop in on Stall's diner at closing time to hold it up. They terrorized one of the female employees before pulling weapons on the staff. Tom, seemingly reacting instinctively, throws coffee in the face of one before shooting both to death. He is instantly proclaimed a hero, a title which he, in his humility, wants no part of. He brushes aside local news teams who want to add to his acclaim.

In the wake of his new-found celebrity, he is visited in his diner by three Philadelphia toughs who claim that Tom is really Joey Cusack, who as a boy tried to rip out one of their eyes with barbed wire. The man who makes this claim, Carl Fogarty (Ed Harris), shows his nearly useless eye to us, lending a note of sinister menace to his character. The film then speeds up, as we rather breathlessly seek to discover if this Tom Stall can possibly be the guy who had such a checkered past from Philadelphia. Of course, as we later discover, he is. The growing consternation of his wife and son (his daughter is still too young to pick up much of what is going on) reaches a culmination of sorts when Tom slaps his high school-aged son Jack after declaring that in his family there is no "slapping around." The danger of the movie is enhanced not only by a skillfully-played sound track but by the intrusive, but seemingly friendly, efforts of Sheriff Sam Carney (Peter MacNeill) who simply wants to "protect his own" (i.e., the people from Millbrook).

To make a long story short, we learn that Tom is, indeed, the Joey Cusack from Philadelphia days. After being pressured by Fogarty, Tom has occasion to use his pugilistic skills to good effect by "offing" Fogarty and his two goons and then, in a final bloodbath, knocking off some Philadelphia mobsters, headed by his brother Richie, who would like to eliminate him, Tom. The film never really explains whether it was Tom's act of killing Fogarty and friends that led Richie Cusack to want to kill Tom or whether it was a long-ago slight that was never properly avenged.

Comment

Cronenberg knows how to build suspense well. This is especially evident when Tom fears his family is in danger from Fogarty and his thugs and rushes home only to find his wife and kids unmolested and wondering at his fear. Cronenberg also skillfully portrayes the son Jack's struggle with his own form of "manliness" as he is harassed at school and threatened by one of the hoodlum-jocks that seem to inhabit every high school in America until Jack, in a fit of rage, levels his oppressor and a friend of his.

But the film lacks verisimilitude in other ways. It was filmed in 2005, and so we assume, unless the film is supposed to be a "retro" film (depicting events of the 1980s or 1970s, for example), that it is a 2005 movie. But it looks like a 1980s set. This is probably because it was filmed in Canada, and present-day Canadian dingy looks like 1980s American dingy (such as in the kind of wall phones, the motel, the siding of the Stall's home, etc.) So, I was jarred a bit by this seemingly unskillful anachronistic presentation. Then, the suspense, though sometimes well done, is overdone and fades into melodrama at times. This is most clear in the final scene of the movie. Though some critics rave over this scene (where Tom returns from Philadelphia to rejoin his emotionally-battered family), I find it trite and insincere. Would he be accepted back at home? Everyone is trying real hard to communicate how hard this acceptance would be. But the scene lacks genuiness and conviction.

Thus, in the end, the film served for me more as an entertaining 90 minutes than a "message" about anything. I wondered at times whether who could kick the other's ass--Tom Stall or Jason Bourne. But I didn't wonder much about whether violence has a "history" in our lives or society, or whether we each have a past to conceal. I just marveled at the ways that Tom managed to kill people (10 in all in the film) while still seeming to be so mild-mannered. Let's just put it this way. Just as the CIA would never be the same after Jason Bourne, so small-town IN would never be the same after Tom Stall. Thus my final words--The History of Violence, pretentiously-titled but entertaining nevertheless.

3497