History of Violence

[adriftconscious]

I've seen the trailers for this movie and to be blunt, I yawned. I really thought this move was going to be abysmal. But I've gone around and the movie is elicting almost universal praise. I wondered if anyone else had interest in it. I think the theater here will be getting it soon.

[amalgamate]

I've seen the trailers for this movie and to be blunt, I yawned. I really thought this move was going to be abysmal. But I've gone around and the movie is elicting almost universal praise. I wondered if anyone else had interest in it. I think the theater here will be getting it soon.

i thought the previews looked interesting. I don't often see movies at theaters, so i'll probably rent this one when it comes out..regardless of reviews.  

[Josh]

I saw it last night. I'll post my in-depth review later today, but for now let me just say that it's currently duking it out with Broken Flowers for the honor of being my favorite film of the year.

But it is for discerning, mature grown-ups ONLY. Most pholks should probably just skip it-- it's far too brutal for anyone but the most thoughtful of moviegoers.

[AldaForPresident]

I've seen the trailers for this movie and to be blunt, I yawned. I really thought this move was going to be abysmal. But I've gone around and the movie is elicting almost universal praise. I wondered if anyone else had interest in it. I think the theater here will be getting it soon.

It's not playing anywhere near here (surprise, surprise) but if it does make it here, I would probably try and catch it, because the reviews are so fantastic and I'm curious. I do agree the trailer was horrible.

[Josh]

[adriftconscious]

It sounds interesting, I will definitely be checking this film out when we get it. Thank you for the thoughts, Josh.


Was I right that the trailer didn't really do much to sell the movie, though?

[Josh]

Don't really remember the trailer, but I LOVE the poster.  

[Guest]

I saw this, and regret doing so. I am a thoughtful movie-goer (I suppose), but as Josh pointed out in his review, the only redeeming thing about this story is that it reveals how depraved humanity can be. Yes, I suppose one could look at it from a christian perspective and believe it does good by showing how fallen humans are desperate for a saviour. But the film never really hints at that, though I'm sure one could find hints if they really tried (look hard enough for "hints" of anything in a film, and you'll find them).

This movie show people at their worst, but in my opinion, the graphic violence/sex is not necessary to see to make that point. It's shock value, pure and simple...do we really need that to understand that people are inherently sinful and wicked, and good/evil are not simply divided?

I'm not saying this isn't a well-made movie in many respects. There is some great acting. The art-house crowd will find it more to their liking than many mainstream films. But to honestly find redemptive value in it, you have to look for something that's just not there, and the search isn't worth watching.  

[Josh]

It's shock value, pure and simple...

Fiddlesticks! If it's just shock value then why are the sex scenes filmed almost completely devoid of nudity? Why are the scenes of violence so fleetingly brief? All of the sex and violence that is seen is necessary to the story.

Yes, I suppose one could look at it from a christian perspective and believe it does good by showing how fallen humans are desperate for a saviour.

Great art is not about ensorsing a message or moral lesson, ie. "humans are desperate for a Saviour." Great art is about exploration, and that's what this film gives us. We see an honest, truthful portrayal of violence and its consequences, and are left to consider it for ourselves and draw our own conclusions.

. But to honestly find redemptive value in it, you have to look for something that's just not there, and the search isn't worth watching.

I find this to be somewhat offensive-- after all, I found something "redemptive" in the film... am I just making all that up? The film shows us truth in a powerful way. The truth is definitely "there"-- it's not something you have to read too far into the film to find.

[Guest]

Fiddlesticks! If it's just shock value then why are the sex scenes filmed almost completely devoid of nudity? Why are the scenes of violence so fleetingly brief? All of the sex and violence that is seen is necessary to the story.

There is nudity, though not explicit. But if there had been more nudity in a couple scenes, it would have been hardcore porn - and even if the director wanted to, he wouldn't have been able to get away with that. I don't remember the violent scenes being that brief, either. I guess what I meant was that this story did not need all the graphic violence/sex to communicate its themes. The violent sex on the stairs scene was not necessary to the story, though I understand the point of it. The disturbing scenes add shock value to the story, which may make us remember it better, but doesn't make it a good movie to watch.

Great art is not about ensorsing a message or moral lesson, ie. "humans are desperate for a Saviour." Great art is about exploration, and that's what this film gives us. We see an honest, truthful portrayal of violence and its consequences, and are left to consider it for ourselves and draw our own conclusions.

Actually, one of the problems I had with this movie was that some of the characters were unconvincing. The whole setup - ridiculously normal small town full of stereotyped people gets shocked by violence - seemed pretty forced at times. Some of the side characters, like the high school bully (a young Patrick Swayze??), were laughable.

 

find this to be somewhat offensive-- after all, I found something "redemptive" in the film... am I just making all that up? The film shows us truth in a powerful way. The truth is definitely "there"-- it's not something you have to read too far into the film to find.

There's a misunderstanding here. I was merely echoing what you had already said (and I had already agreed with): it is possible to find something redemptive in the film, but you have to look for what's not there. What I meant was that I don't think it's worth watching full-on depravity most of the time to realize that sin/violence is our condition and we need a healer.

[Josh]

There is nudity, though not explicit. But if there had been more nudity in a couple scenes, it would have been hardcore porn - and even if the director wanted to, he wouldn't have been able to get away with that.

I dunno, I've seen much worse in R-rated films. And my point is really just that the sex scenes are clearly not filmed in a pornographic or titilating fashion.

I guess what I meant was that this story did not need all the graphic violence/sex to communicate its themes.

Umm.... no, but it DID need them to tell its story...

The violent sex on the stairs scene was not necessary to the story, though I understand the point of it. The disturbing scenes add shock value to the story, which may make us remember it better, but doesn't make it a good movie to watch.

I don't see why it has to be vital to the story-- it provides a contrast to the sexual innocence we see before the Fall, so to speak. It adds another layer to the film's exploration of violence and its effects.

I was merely echoing what you had already said (and I had already agreed with): it is possible to find something redemptive in the film, but you have to look for what's not there.

Well, in a sense, but everything I've written about the movie is supported by the text (ie, the movie itself). The film is certainly open to interpretation, but only interpretations that are supported by the piece itself.

What I meant was that I don't think it's worth watching full-on depravity most of the time to realize that sin/violence is our condition and we need a healer.

For many people, sure. But I found the film to be challenging, insightful, and ultimately quite rewarding. It's given me a lot to think about. And that thinking leads to places far beyond the basic moral message you continually suggest the film is trying to drive home-- again, it' about EXPLORATION, not a "message."

And thus concludes the most time I've ever spent debating with an anonymous guest.    

[amalgamate]

And thus concludes the most time I've ever spent debating with an anonymous guest.  

haha, indeed

i figured you knew who it was!

   

[Guest]

Umm.... no, but it DID need them to tell its story...

Sure. I guess I just feel that not every story is worth watching. Not that this story wasn't thought-provoking, but it left me with a sense of...how did this benefit me? It didn't help that I was watching it with a female friend, and we both felt pretty dirty afterwards.

I don't see why it has to be vital to the story-- it provides a contrast to the sexual innocence we see before the Fall, so to speak. It adds another layer to the film's exploration of violence and its effects.

Good point. Nevertheless, must all things wrong/disgusting be explored? Is there something wrong with the fascination that society (including ourselves) sometimes has with such things?

For many people, sure. But I found the film to be challenging, insightful, and ultimately quite rewarding. It's given me a lot to think about. And that thinking leads to places far beyond the basic moral message you continually suggest the film is trying to drive home-- again, it' about EXPLORATION, not a "message."

That "message" I was suggesting was taken from what you said in the beginning of your review. I could be off, but you made it sound as if the director did have a veiled message behind all the violence. And really, on the topic of artistic exploration vs. media messages...I don't think there is such a thing as a film with no message. Every director/writer brings viewpoints and biases to his films that lend to some sort of subjective messages, even if that's not his/her intent.

And thus concludes the most time I've ever spent debating with an anonymous guest. 

I'm flattered.  [_[
 

[AldaForPresident]

I saw this today, and I honestly wasn't all that impressed by it. I would never argue that it's not well done (except for the score, which I thought was horrible and incredibly overbearing). Cronenberg, Mortenson, Hurt, and especially Bello deserve Oscar nominations. However, I found some of the dialogue to be cheesy and over-the-top. I'm not sure where exactly to put it in my film journal - I ended up sticking it alongside other films that although technically masterful, left me unmoved, such as Kingdom of Heaven and Cinderella Man.

I think I viewed this the same way a lot of people viewed Closer and We Don't Live Here Anymore last year - like I didn't have to see it to get the point. I just kept thinking, Well, duh.

[Josh]

But again, I wince when people talk about this film as having "a point." It's not a message movie. It's not simply about saying the Violence is Bad. It's an exploration of the different ways in which violence manifests itself, and what the different consequences are. It's not a statement; it's a series of questions. Was Tom justified in doing what he did? It was in self-defense, and yet he is still haunted by the wages of sin. When, if ever, is violence okay? And if violence is justified to we still escape its consequences?

There's a lot more to it than first meets the eye.

[AldaForPresident]

I really do understand what you're saying - I didn't mean to dumb down the movie's context. But all those themes didn't really manifest themselves in the way intended, for me, at least. For one thing, I didn't like any of the characters at ALL. That might be superficial, but I always felt like I was watching a movie, not like I was really witnessing anything that happens to real people, but do real people do things that are that idiotic? I couldn't muster any smypathy for people who put themselves in such ridculous situations over and over. I realize that's a "can't see the forest for the trees" reaction, but I mean that only in terms of my personal attitude about it - I do think it's an artful film and I can understand why so many are calling it one of the best of the year.

I knew it wasn't going to be pleasant to watch, but I didn't expect to be disgusted more by the the characters than their actions.

[Josh]

That's an understandable reaction.

Regarding the characters, I do think you have to keep in mind that the film is a subversive American myth-- along the same lines as Unforgiven and many of Martin Scorsese's films. Thus, the characters aren't always meant to be people we can relate to-- their actions are meant to take on more of a metaphorical quality.

But your reaction makes sense to me. There are plenty of films that are very well made, but I just can't get into the story or the characters. So I know where you're coming from.

[AldaForPresident]

It did remind me quite a bit of an old-school Scorsese film without the charisma. Another one I kept thinking about was American Psycho, which unlike any of Scorsese's or A History of Violence OR Unforgiven, was, as I far as I can tell, completely gratuitious and mind-melding just for the sake of being "cool," and nothing else. (That would be an excellent film to discuss here, if enough people had seen it.) But the ending reminded me a bit of American Psycho's, and the way the main character had two dualing forces at work in him. Only A History of Violence exhibited restraint and nuance whereas American Psycho exhibited a kind of "violence porn" and shock value that was completely unneccesary.