A History of Violence

2005
Director: David Cronenberg
Writer: Josh Olson

One of my aims for these next few months is to try to expand my viewing of different directors. I still can’t believe how little I’ve seen from the likes of David Lynch, Werner Herzog, Alfred Hitchcock and Ingmar Bergman. Another name to add to that list is David Cronenberg. My full exploration of his work extends into two films: Eastern Promises (2007), a very cold film which I enjoyed nonetheless and Videodrome (1983) which I think I was too young to watch at 13, as it didn’t make much sense and disturbed me in some parts, especially the VCR in the chest parts for some reason. So I was excited when I finally had the chance to watch the copy of A History of Violence I had saved on Sky+ many months ago once I got back from university. I’d heard good things about it and hoped the slightly less abstract content would give me a smoother introduction into Cronenberg’s working mind.

Thankfully this turned out to be true, here presenting a snapshot of a small town in Indiana, the kind where everyone knows everyone and strangers are treated with suspicion. Indeed, it’s surprisingly ordinary for Cronenberg, filmed solidly in dulled autumnal hues. Here, Viggo Mortensen plays Tom Stall, a local diner owner, well-liked by everyone and part of a loving family of wife Edie, teenage son Jack and young daughter Sarah. He comes across as a kind and almost gentle figure, as shown by his careful care for his restaurant as he cleans litter outside and his friendly banter with the customers. Our glimpses into his intimate relationship with his wife played by Maria Bello, shows him almost as being submissive, as she takes control in the bedroom. However everything is soon thrown into disarray following an armed stickup by two gangsters at the diner. In self-defence, Stall takes out the men violently and swiftly and is soon deemed a local hero by the media. This though brings the unwelcome attention of East-coast mobsters including Ed Harris’s deformed and menacing Carl Fogarty, convinced that Tom is in fact Joey Cusack, a former gangster on the run.

This curveball soon brings the family into crisis. They become increasingly aware of other facets of Tom’s personality, ones which he had concealed even from himself. His moods shift, he suddenly much more reserved and defensive, the look in his eyes change. The stalking by the mobsters soon disturbs the town, afraid of these unwelcome strangers. The tension here builds as we and the family have no idea what they want or what they will do next. The smallest of movements and the most ordinary of objects inflict added stress: the slow passing of a car outside, the central framing of a door, a close up of a shotgun all creates a threat of incoming terror. It’s this attack on the things that Tom holds dear that makes it so unbearable: his home is no longer safe, his family is at risk, even his own identity is being jeopardised.  Cronenberg is fascinated with the process of change Tom and the family goes through, as we witness his own personal identity crisis and the shock of doubt for his wife and son especially as they question the man they know.

Of course central to this is the theme of violence and what it means to people. Cronenberg presents it as being something that permeates all aspects of life, as being something that comes naturally to anyone, as part of our own animal subconscious. Roger Ebert in his review of the film notes how the title A History of Violence has three meanings: the past actions of an individual, the role of violent acts in history and the role violence plays in our own existence, our evolutionary survival of the fittest. The visceral scene of Tom trying violently to calm Evie which soon morphs into a burst of rough sex highlights the primal essence of both actions, how they both serve our need for self-preservation and gratification. Every instance of violence within the film is there for a reason- each one signifies the gradual process of transformation Cronenberg is so interested in. Who inflicts it and on whom? Why? This is also presented in the son Jack and his own crisis. His increasingly unrestrained reactions against a bully at school are tied with the increasing emotional strain from the terrorisation and the doubts about his own father. Is this emerging violent streak something he inherited from the people around him, an aspect of their personalities he wasn’t aware of? Was it always there, to present itself eventually?

From this Cronenberg explores the creation of our identities and personalities. Firstly, we see how others choose to identify the characters, most notably the local media’s declaration of Tom as a hero. We then also see how characters choose to present themselves- the gangsters aim to flaunt their prestige and opulence, as shown by the ornate mansion of the mob boss and the large estate car with tinted windows they drive. This immediately stands out and arouses the suspicions of the local people; its distinction emphasises the distance between the small town in Indiana and the big city of Philadelphia where they belong and where Tom’s shady past which he has been trying to escape resides. From here Cronenberg asks us to question the identity of Tom. His creation of his humble life in this small town is so strong he has convinced himself it’s the real deal, but is it truly him? He chose to play this role but will his inherent personality, the roots of which lie in his mysterious past, eventually dominate? Are we ourselves as human beings doing the same- simply choosing to consciously supress our base instincts?

Despite all this possible meaning layered within, the film also works brilliantly simply as a tense and entertaining thriller. Cronenberg’s control and its calm leisurely pacing only heighten the sense of trepidation as the world of the characters that he has spent time carefully creating for us is increasingly threatened. In terms of plotting, this film isn’t entirely pioneering- once we begin to learn more about Tom’s past, the outcome does begin to feel expected and inevitable. However, what the script really puts emphasis on and what its greatest strength is comes from the creation of characters so richly complex and so excellently brought to life by a great cast. The subtlety of their performances coupled with the more extravagant content of the film creates a diegesis that remains believable and engaging. I enjoyed my latest exploration of David Cronenberg and found that whatever his films contain, they all concern the very factors that make us human and how outside impacts, ranging from the fantastic to the far more ordinary, can force drastic mutation and trauma which push the very boundaries of our psyche.