A History of Violence

I've been on a big Cronenberg kick lately, and just recently watched "A History of Violence", his first collaboration with Viggo Mortensen. This film still fascinates me on my third watch. The first time I saw it, I felt kind of underwhelmed by the almost simplistic plot. That was when I was about 13, and did not yet have a grasp of the concept of a character study.

My two times watching it since then, I've gotten a better idea of just how profound Cronenberg's analysis of protagonist Tom Stall/Joey Cusack is. The "plot" is not so much the true storyline of the film, as it is a progression of the character realizing who he is, with Tom Stall gradually dissolving and Joey Cusack emerging. There are three violent confrontations in this film, each time with the number of antagonists growing exponentially, and each time representing a stage in Joey's rebirth, and Tom's acceptance of his identity.

The inciting incident takes place when two random goons driving across the country happen upon Tom's town and try to rob his diner. These men, the first "bad men" encountered in the film, are strangers to Tom, representing how Tom has disposed of his Joey Cusack identity, and considers "bad men" to be strangers to his new life. The second encounter takes place with Carl Fogerty (Ed Harris), who is actively seeking out Tom, trying to disrupt his peaceful life and out him as Joey Cusack. As Tom futilely resists and tries to ignore Fogerty, it becomes clear that he views Joey Cusack as a bad memory, an interloper. With Fogerty's death at the hands of Tom's son, his life is thrown into disarray, and he comes clean to his wife. This is when his final encounter with bad men takes place. His brother Richie Cusack calls him, and Tom/Joey willingly drives back to Philadelphia.

Essentially, the three "bad men" Tom encounters share the following relationships to him: Stranger, Enemy and Brother. They gradually become more familiar to him, which parallels the gradual seepage of Joey Cusack back into his life. At first he's forgotten about Joey; then he wants to forget him again; finally, he faces his demons voluntarily, and seems to accept that Joey Cusack is a part of his life.

I think one key character whose relevance is easy to miss is Billy, the younger of the two goons who rob Tom's diner. Billy's actor, Greg Bryk, strongly resembles a younger version of Viggo Mortensen. During the robbery, as a waitress attempts to leave, Billy grabs her and pulls her back. Later on, after an argument, Tom grabs his wife, Edie, in a very similar fashion. This all seems very deliberate; Billy's arrival in town therefore becomes a visual metaphor for Joey Cusack's return.

Also, returning to the scene in which Tom grabs Edie, it initially seemed to many viewers, myself included the first time I watched it, that this was an irreversibly damaging moment to Tom's character, significantly reducing his audience sympathy. But watching it now, the progression of events strongly suggest otherwise. Tom grabs Edie by the throat and pushes her down, only to suddenly regret his actions and start to pull away; it's then that Edie kisses Tom, initiating their rough sex. This struck me as a sort of healing moment for their marriage. This was Edie getting to know Joey Cusack on a carnal level, something necessary for their relationship to survive - deciding she wants to grow familiar with who her husband really is, rather than rejecting him as a fantasy. And in turn, it allows Joey to see himself as a human being and potential husband, the same person as Tom Stall, not an irredeemable monster who must be destroyed and forgotten.

At face value, the events of this film's narrative seem to be a man's life spiraling out of control, a negative impact on Tom Stall and his family. But that's only if we force ourselves to reject the fact that Tom Stall was once Joey Cusack. This puts us subconsciously in Tom/Joey's shoes with regards to his internal conflict; we can either view the turmoil in his life as an unwanted intrusion on a good, peaceful man, or we can view it as a sort of cleansing on a delusionally compartmentalized psyche, allowing it to merge and begin the path to mental health. As we see in several scenes, Tom's efforts to forget and suppress Joey Cusack are borderline-schizophrenic.

The film's resolution seemed to be a man who had reconciled his identity returning to a family who was willing to accept him. There was still a lot of healing to do, but I'd say the ending was a hopeful and positive one.

My favorite Cronenberg films:

1.) History of Violence 2.) The Fly 3.) Dead Ringers 4.) Eastern Promises

And wow, this movie is every bit as powerful as it was when I first saw it. The tension is borderline Hitchcockian and the action scenes are simple, yet brutally efficient which adds a layer of depth to the underlying mystery of the film: "How come he's so good at killing people"? Ed Harris is terrific at bringing a sense of menace in his supporting role as aged Irish mafioso Carl Fogarty and keeps you on the edge of your seat for the entirety of the story. Though most would say The Fly is Cronenberg's best film to date, I'd have to disagree and say A History of Violence, along with Eastern Promises, are his greatest films. If you haven't seen either, do yourself a solid and watch them!

Please forgive me in advance as I am not a film-connoisseur like many members on this sub. It's been almost a decade since I've seen David Cronenberg's A History of Violence. At the time, I felt that it was a well-crafted movie and I realize the high praise that critics have bestowed upon it, but honestly, I hadn't give it much thought since I'd last seen it. Anyway, last night I had the pleasure of viewing Out Of The Past (1947) and while watching it I couldn't help but think that I'd seen it before. As I watched and upon reflecting on it, I realized that it held many similarities with A History of Violence. Am I out in left-field here, or did David Cronenberg completely rip-off (or perhaps draw his inspiration from) Out Of The Past? Apart from being a private-eye, Viggo Mortensen was nearly Robert Mitchum's character, who was tasked with dealing with the consequences of a past life. It's like David Cronenberg literally took the first 30 minutes of Out Of The Past, transposed it into A History of Violence and said, "There, that's the movie". As a result, AHOV now feels somewhat cheap to me. I absolutely loved Out Of The Past but now can't help but feel apprehensive about considering A History of Violence as being such a great film, as so many critics see it. Am I wrong about this or I am I missing something here? Please fill me in.

This movie to me summarizes Viggo as John Wick. I would give so much to see Viggo in his prime as Wick. Killing everyone. Being ruthless. And, how crazy is that the mob infiltrated a little town and started harrasing its citizens to find one of their own to kill them.