Even Viggo Can’t Redeem A History of Violence
I’m inordinately fond of Viggo Mortensen (perhaps mostly because I’ve had an Aragorn crush since the age of 7, into which I incorporated Viggo when the films came along), and I usually agree with Entertainment Weekly reviews. These were my two reasons for seeing on DVD. ().
Anyone who reads this blog knows by now that I don’t like violence on screen (unless it’s very stylized, choreographed violence with no visible blood) or in real life. But the EW review promised that A History of Violence dealt with important themes, like “whether violence begets violence, whether perception is reality, whether a destructive animal instinct for combat really is lodged in the peaceful heart of every man.” These are issues I’m willing to see meaningfully explored in film.
A History of Violence didn’t do that at all. At least not for me or Porpoise. Porpoise’s first comment after the movie? “That has to be in the top tier of most pointless movies I’ve ever seen.” My first comment after seeing the movie? “Blech.”
“Blech” is still about all I have to say, because the movie didn’t give much for us to interact with. All the blood didn’t even disgust me that much (probably because I was looking away from the screen half the time, but also because it all seemed so pointless).
The most intriguing thing in the whole movie was Viggo’s character’s brief comment that he spent three years in the desert becoming all-American Midwestern family man Tom Stall, instead of Philly mafia guy Joey Cusack. Now that could have been an interesting movie. How does a former hitman become a man of peace?
But if you want to see an exploration of why men become violent, History offers no insight. I have hopes that the new documentary might cover that ground.
P.S. The EW page on A History of Violence also contains a factual error. Ed Harris, not William Hurt, received the 2006 Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actor.
Add comment April 9th, 2006