|
|
|
bars & clubs movie clock restaurants specials best of chicago film and video food and drink music and clubs stage style words sports features |
|
|
![]() Bruised Which "History of Violence" did you see?
Dear reader, she slugged me.
David Cronenberg makes the kind of smart movies that make me
stupid-happy, but all the explication in the world is not making every
person I know happy after they've gone to "A History of Violence" on
my recommendation. A few hours before typing this, in fact, I was both
slugged and shoved and told just how stupid the movie was. "Hey, I
didn't make the movie," is my usual reply, but in this case, it
seemed diplomatic to run away for just a little bit.
Superficially a Western, Cronenberg's accomplished, lustrous film, is
about Tom Stall, the proprietor of a diner (Viggo Mortensen) who must
protect his family after a shootout in his Indiana small town causes
Philadelphia mobsters to come looking for him, intent that he's a man
out of their past, one who had an unpaid debt. Mortensen and Maria
Bello, who plays his wife, are tremulously alive in every scene.
Cronenberg toys with storytelling conventions, notions and clichés drawn
from noir, pulp novels (and a graphic novel, which he says he did not
know of before he read the script). Cronenberg offers both the visceral
satisfactions of filmed violence and a critique of it, a cool Darwinian
game that shifts gears several times in a split second. There's a
tremendously smart set of scenes about how power can shift in sexual
relations in a committed relationship, and the sex, like the violence,
are taut, bravura studies in concision, geometry and suddenness.
And now I have a bruise.
I had the chance to interview Cronenberg last week after the movie's
opening, but we got caught in a scheduling bind: a taping of "Fresh
Air" with Terry Gross at Navy Pier had run long, traffic was bad, the
pillows on the hotel couch didn't offer any lumbar support, and he had a
3:30pm live radio interview that couldn't be flipped. It was good to run
a couple of observations past the 62-year-old director, looking his age
but fit and content, but there was no way to get a conversation into
fourteen minutes after he'd had the luxury of long, loping replies to
questions in Ms. Gross' salon.
But it felt good just to offer a few descriptive affirmations,
especially as I'd read a dozen earlier interviews since its Cannes debut
and Toronto showing, each one as fresh, wry and witty as the other. But
I'd also read a couple of reviews where writers have used the movie as a
cudgel to muss the hair of a straw man called "intellectual
filmmaking," but my favorite came from Daniel Neman, a writer for the
Richmond Times Dispatch, who was irritated to the max by the tasty
minimalism. Neman reviews Cronenberg's sleek stunner as "a cheap
movie, cheaply filmed and cheaply made. And the editing leaves a lot to
be desired, too... David Cronenberg ought to know better, but it is
clear that he is working with too little money and too little script."
Or, as my acquaintance put it, "Nothing happens! It's all obvious! It's
clichés! What were you on?"
Cronenberg's scripts are notoriously short. He told me that the
"Crash" pages ran only to a total of fifty-five or so, and perhaps
sixty-six for the 97-minute "History." They're master classes in how
quickly you can convey information, and there's a quiet smile on
Cronenberg's face as he recalls the numbers. Back to my straw man: "The
problem with the story is clear when we consider all the filler used
just to stretch the movie to an hour and a half," the Virginian writes.
"Cronenberg does not help matters by shooting the film so deadpan, so
quietly, that it seems slow and uninteresting. The calm is punctuated by
occasional bursts of violence and the disgusting special effects that
follow them, but they don't help... It is obvious where Cronenberg's
interest picks up, though it is only in a few places... He clearly
revels in the scenes of blood and gore, though each one looks rather
like the others... What doesn't interest him or the writer is the
ending. The [ending] feels like it was written by a committee that
jettisoned logic and character motivation just for the sake of ending.
The filmmakers want it to end, so it ends."
And so it goes. For the record, Cronenberg has told interviewers,
including your correspondent, that the final scene was one of his key
demands to New Line, which readily acceded to his choice. I've seen "A
History of Violence" three times, and it was still a thrill down to the
smallest bit--Howard Shore's dour, Copland-esque score offers another
layer of beauty and deliberation, and William Hurt has a small role that
is almost indescribably louche and lovely. Here is one iconic, ironic
image: convinced that his family is about to be ambushed at their
farmhouse, he must rush to save the day once more. He calls his wife on
his cell phone, and on bandaged foot, he run-hobbles across several
beautifully composed frames, including one where his head rises above
the horizon of a highway lined by autumn yellow and orange and grey
trees: Gary Cooper without a horse. Cronenberg grins, "Is that Monty
Python or what?"
"A History of Violence" is now playing.
Also by Ray Pride Oliver's Twist
Tip of the Week
Tip of the Week
Family way
Arms and the Man
Tip of the Week
Sympathy for the possessed
Tip of the Week
Fall Forward: Film
Tip of the Week
The Politics of Love
Tip of the Week
|
|
about Newcitychicago | about Newcity magazine | advertising | privacy policy | FAQ | employment |