by Chris Narkun
Daily Lobo
To fantasy mavens who regularly watch the four-hour versions of "The Lord of the Rings" movies and adore their star, Viggo Mortensen: Do not see this movie.
On second thought, do see "A History of Violence" - just don't take any of the youthful innocence that fuels your obsession with magical fantasy worlds with you.
The film, directed by David Cronenberg - a master in disturbing, provoking and horrifying audiences since the exploding head in "Scanners" and the worst arm-wrestling match in history in "The Fly" - is an expert piece of audience manipulation as well as a thoughtful meditation on violence and the American attitude toward it.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
The plot centers on Mortensen's character, Tom Stall, who lives a perfect American life in a perfect American town, running a diner with a regular clientele, while his son plays baseball and his successful blond-haired wife takes his cute blond-haired daughter shopping. All is well until his diner is robbed, and his violent heroics win him 15 minutes of fame that bring unwanted attention from his past in the form of a scarred and scary Ed Harris.
The core of the film, though, is not who Mortensen is and why - as Harris puts it - he's so good at killing people; it is the way the violence he brings into his family members' lives changes them and their perceptions of him.
The supporting cast, including the great William Hurt, is wonderful, and none better than Maria Bello as Mortensen's wife. She gives an amazing performance as a woman whose blissful reality implodes around her and who reacts in unexpected ways.
What will surprise viewers most, though, is the way they react to the various portrayals of bloodshed - brutal or justifiable, gruesome or humorous - and the questions these reactions raise about the essence of such violence. When is violence justified? Why do we applaud some acts of violence when we feel it is deserved and detest others? How can we laugh at brutality presented in one way when we'd be shocked in another context?
A film this willing to break cinematic rules and shock its audience out of familiar comfort zones is rare, and a film able to do so with intelligence and depth is even harder to come by. "Violence" is not for young people, prudes or those with weak stomachs. But for adults willing to think about their movies, this film is one of the best to come along in a while.
After the screening I attended, one young woman complained that she hated the sex scenes, the violence and the ambiguous ending. If you hate the former, you've probably never had sex, and if you're not willing to draw your own conclusions from the end of the film, you need more imagination and curiosity.
But if you hate the violence - well, aren't you supposed to?
