 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
66.245.6.228
Roger Ebert says this film is not plot driven, it's character driven. I disagree. This film is THEME driven. While it's adapted from a graphic novel (adult comic book), it's much more than a stylish and dark thriller, or oddly gripping yet not altogether plausible tale, as some reviewers have stated. I think it's much more than any of these. "A History of Violence" is an allegory that asks the question: "Can we forgive each other for our sins if Jesus never died for them?"Cronenberg is a survivalist, a professed Darwinian. I firmly believe that this is a movie about our coming to grips with the duality of our human nature without the possibility of divine redemption. Only we can raise each other up and lift ourselves out of the primordial ooze of our potentially violent human nature. Only by recognizing that we have both a dark and a light side -- a violent and a peaceful side -- that only we can take responsibility for and forgive, are we going to be able to redeem the human race. There is no God to do it for us. Or so "A History of Violence" has me a thinking. And here's why...
Viggo Mortensen's character at the top of the movie is a family man named Tom Stall. We soon find out that his real identity is Joey Cusack, a former gangster who (in his words) "died" in the desert and was "reborn" when he met his wife. The fact that he was "reborn" after "dying" is fairly strong evidence that his character is meant to conjure thoughts of Jesus, however the most overt element of association for me was the fact that his initials are J.C. Joey Cusack as Jesus "died" so that he could rebirth himself as a peaceful, innocent, CHRISTIAN man (he wears a one inch crucifix around his neck).
Unfortunately for him, he couldn't. He couldn't rebirth himself because he never really died -- he just sublimated his anger and violence, "almost believing" that he really was this peaceful family man.
This has interesting ramifications for us as humans, I believe Cronenberg is postulating. If "Jesus" didn't really die, who is there to forgive us our sins and trespasses? Since "Jesus" never died, he couldn't be reborn an innocent. Unfortunately for him, Joey Cusack's violent roots come back to haunt him after some gangsters see him on TV and find out where he has been all these years since he left the life of violent crime. Once Joey Cusack does what he must (extreme violence) to eradicate the threat to his new life, he wreaks havoc on his family. VIOLENT havoc. And the question is, can THEY forgive HIM?
I believe this is the crux (pun intended) of the film. Since "Jesus" didn't really die, the only ones who can forgive us are the people around us. We humans, ultimately, must forgive each other's sins; we must forgive our dark side.
The final frame of the film has JC coming back to his family (as they are sitting at the dinner table after leaving them), without a word, to wipe out his enemies. Will they forgive him? Or will this be his "last supper," after which he will be dead to them forever? And by refusing to acknowledge his dark side, are they going to be able to deal with their own? The son, a pacifist, has a dark side that makes itself known quite dramatically... what will happen to him if the family can't forgive the father's dark side?
Seen in this light, "A History of Violence" is much more than a violent or strangely engaging-in-typical-Cronenberg-fashion movie. Very much like "Fight Club," it looks deep beneath the surface of human behavior ... but only if we look beneath the surface of the film.
Follow Ups:
a little overly broad, I would say. Your point is well taken that there is a distinct reference to Jesus, both in the name and in the talk of death and rebirth in the desert. This is not necessarily uncommon...many films and books provide religious symbolism, for example the hero in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest also had definite parallels to Jesus.But I think you make too much out of this. I don't think there is any religious point to this at all, nothing to do with Jesus dying or not dying for our sins.
It is a very personal story about a man who totally transformed his life, but who did not truly transform his deeper nature. That simple really. Plus some superficial and somewhat pointless events that show that perhaps his son inherited his violent nature. Perhaps Joey Cusack thought he could be reborn as an innocent because his initials made him think of himself as Jesus Christ. I think identifying the two and interpreting this as a parable about Jesus is too much.
but you never know with these creative director/author types! While it might seem far-fetched, when you analyze the theory and the evidence, it holds water (at least enough for me to keep pondering it). The fact that many literary figures are Messianic does not, by itself, nullify this analysis, IMHO. The other thing that I'm aware of is that authors and directors come up with very symbolic and subtle themes that often are never "figured out" by the public. So I'm not going to give up on this one yet... Of course, I might just be one voice "crying in the wilderness"! :-)All my best,
Tom
with art and film is a medium that, at its best, allows for very personal interpretation of visual symbolism. And I think Cronenberg is a gifted filmaker with a body of work that I respect. Now, I would say that this is not one of his best movies, but even so, it does have the depth to allow individuals to interpret it in their own ways. So I'm not saying there is a right or wrong here.
I also enjoyed A History of Violence. Without viewing this film as a fable,though, it might seem shallow and pointless. This point was driven home to me by a group of three guys sitting in front of me in the theater when I saw it. Tittering and cackling like little schoolboys during the sex and ultaviolence... It continually amazes me how films end up in front of "unintended" audiences. Cronenberg is a thinking man's director. I know I'll be stimulated when I see one of his films. Sometimes in ways I might not actually like!Cheers
of any contemporary film and that's saying a lot.
The cartoon character portrayal of Ed Harris is so over the top you can't believe it... until Hurt makes HIS entrance.
None of the actors, obviously, took this seriously but if you want to, be my guest.
Sin City, Get Carter, and Perdition are probably on your shelf, too.
The characters/dialogue are not always naturalistic because this is a FABLE, and not a realistic "slice of life" as you might find in other movies (like Crash, for example). If you look at it through the lens of realism, it's going to look "cheezy" in parts. But, I propose you're missing the big picture if you only experience or analyze it in those terms.Re. your comment that none of the actors took it seriously, you might read some interviews and get a different take on that. There is at least one interview on line (of the lead actress) indicating that she and Viggo took it VERY seriously.
I'm wondering if there's a little bit of anger, sarcasm, or judgment in your last line ["Sin City, Get Carter, and Perdition are probably on your shelf, too."] If my sense is correct, where does that come from? What about yourself/your life are you not at peace with right now?
All my best,
Tom
Here's to
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
