movie of the day: A History of Violence (2005)

while i know that David Cronenberg didn't come up with the title of his latest film, A History of Violence, you have to wonder about the title. what exactly is implied by "a history of violence?" are we supposed to recall the old saying that those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it, or is it something else?

that was the question i posed myself when watching A History of Violence. since i was sitting down to watch a Cronenberg film, i knew that there was deeper meaning in that phrase. and since it was a Cronenberg film, i was prepared for a total mind-fuck along the way.

the premise of A History of Violence is pretty simple. Tom Stall is a family man in a small town who owns his own diner. one night, two homicidal maniacs try to rob the diner and rape one of the waitresses. in self-defense, Tom kills them and becomes a national celebrity. soon, shady figures appear in town and mistake Tom for someone named Joey. Tom claims that he has no clue who they are talking about, but these sinister figures are adamant about Tom's identity and there are bloody consequences.

let's get one thing out of the way here--Cronenberg is a master of suspense, and A History of Violence is no different than his other films. even though logic tells you that if a man has his eye taken out by a barbed wire attack, he will never forget the face of his attacker, i couldn't figure out if Tom Stall was really the sociopathic killer Joey Cusack, or if he was a victim of horrible mistaken identity. that is all Cronenberg's doing--he holds it all back until there is a essential moment where there is no turning back. and in that regard, this film is successful, as it had me on the edge of my seat for almost the whole film.

in addition, Cronenberg makes us stand on shaky moral ground. at first glance, it seems that Tom is justified in killing the two men who try to rob his diner. but if he is also Joey Cusack, then his actions begin to fall in a gray area--yes he did the right thing...but would someone without a history of violence been able to do the same?

however, this is as deep as the movie goes. there is an interesting sub-plot involving Tom's son, Jack, who is constantly picked on by a bully at school. Jack's initial attempts to deal with the bully are non-violent, but eventually he reaches a breaking point and puts the bully in the hospital with a severe beating. Cronenberg uses this as a setup for a devastating line Jack delivers to Tom later in the movie, but it could have been so much more. i found myself wondering how Jack would have reacted to the bully if he had known his father's history of violence. but alas, that is never explored.

none of Tom's family has their motivations for dealing with Tom's history of violence explored. it's the one great weakness of the film. but if all you are looking for is a suspenseful film, this is the movie for you. Four Stars (out of Five)