A History of Violence

 

Director David Cronenberg on the set

Cronenberg with Viggo Mortensen

Cronenberg with Mortensen and Monica Bello

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE                      A-                                                                             USA  Germany  (96 mi)  2005  d: David Cronenberg

This might be a good time to re-examine an earlier work of Viggo Mortensen in this David Cronenberg film.  One of the most versatile directors working in cinema today, pioneering the body horror sub-genre into the mainstream, finding subtext in the strangest places in order to uncover our true nature, typically depicted with a pronounced visual flair, earning a great deal of commercial success while exploring deeply unsettling philosophical ramifications.  His first Hollywood studio feature since the 1980’s, adapted from an obscure graphic novel, this may be the most mainstream film of his career, yet also one of the most subversive, both celebrating and deconstructing the American Dream.  The film was almost universally praised, listed as the #1 best film of the year by Amy Taubin from The Village Voice, Amy Taubin: 1987-2005 and J. Hoberman from The Village Voice in 2005, #2 by Cahiers du Cinéma magazine in 2005, and #3 by Jonathan Rosenbaum in 2005.  The Village Voice’s annual poll by critics and film writers named it the best picture of 2005 by the widest margin in their history, joining a long list of cutting edge directors who previously claimed this distinction, Spike Jonze’s Being John Malkovich (1999), David Lynch’s MULHOLLAND DRIVE (2001), Todd Haynes’ FAR FROM HEAVEN (2002), Sofia Coppola’s Lost in Translation (2003), and Richard Linklater’s Before Sunset (2004), with Cronenberg also named best director in the same poll, suggesting the film is part of the pervasive American culture.  Set in a small, predominantly rural, all-white community in Indiana, part of America’s heartland, which suggests an idyllic existence, or a place out of time, a town of “nice people,” according to the sheriff, but part of a delusional portrait of an idealized America, where the opening sequence exemplifies the director’s command of the medium, a masterful long shot that is all mood with a precise malevolent tone, including outrageous shades of dark humor, as Cronenberg does with this film what Eastwood failed to do in MYSTIC RIVER (2003), which is to establish, at the core of this film, believability.  A mix of postmodern sensibilities and arthouse aspirations, the film successfully straddles the line between a thriller and an art film, where it’s intriguing how Cronenberg wordlessly connects between characters as well as the audience, using complex layers that make it difficult to distinguish between right and wrong, good and evil, as many of the evil characters never cross the line of out and out criminal behavior, while many of the righteous and good characters do cross that line, yet for understandable motives.  The question is whether the lead protagonist can renounce violence and forge a new identity, with the film hinting he cannot, as his violent past comes back to haunt the present, reverting to his old ways to save and protect his family, where the primitive violence is very intimate and physical, with the viewing audience becoming complicit in the violence as well, as we identify with the emotional turmoil the characters’ face, which necessitates a kind of moral accounting for that desire for violence, becoming a snapshot of America coming of age in the shadows of violence, with Cronenberg holding a mirror up to society.  They appear to resemble the crises of ordinary people, especially as the attackers are so evil and callous, so we have to accept the consequences, though there are also indications that he has finally cleansed himself of that violence in order to be integrated back into his family, expressed through a family dinner scene, as he’s invited to rejoin the family for a classic Midwestern meal of meatloaf and mashed potatoes.  

With bad guys on the loose, almost in the abstract, the film changes gears and zeroes in on a typical loving family somewhere in small-town Indiana, where Tom, Viggo Mortensen, an aw-shucks everyday kind of guy who runs a Main Street diner, with Monica Bello as Edie, his loving and supportive wife, with two kids, a befuddled teenage boy Jack (Ashton Holmes) who is the victim of a high school bully in a letter jacket and what looks like a cute but over-pampered blond, curly-haired, 6-year old daughter Sarah (Heidi Hayes).  In this film there are no bizarre locales, and no over-stylizations, but it does express violence as an organic phenomenon, drawing on the Western and the gangster genres in order to achieve new levels of consciousness.  The rhythm of life is established and broken when the bad guys enter the diner and get their lunch handed to them by soft-spoken, mild mannered Tom, a stand-in for Clark Kent, who saves the day and is instantly turned into a reluctant hero, where the shift from hero to vigilante happens in an instant, as does the shift from professional killer to American hero, in this case viewed as one and the same.  We are reminded that women and children everywhere live with men who are killers, as they live with men who were soldiers, who did what they had to do during wartime.  Living with killers is not a difficulty, but only becomes troubling when that killing is not sanctioned by a larger purpose.  Mortensen is an actor who can play large or small with equal skill.  Amid a growing sense of paranoia and fear, causing him to remark at one point, “I think I’m losing my mind,” a strange tale of double identity is unfolding.  On the surface, he appears to be an all-American family man, allowing Cronenberg to exploit prevalent themes that occur throughout much of his work, namely, the way things appear can be deceptive, and the idea that normal conventions we use in our everyday lives can be highly dubious.  The director engages in philosophical questions of order and disorder, which can be unclear, especially in the context of our uncertainty in the world around us, yet there’s something deeply unsettling in the way Cronenberg shows how notions of deception can be tied to our own identity.  With various forces of deception undercutting the prevailing reality, Cronenberg makes us question ideas we have about who we are.  Despite his undesired popularity, more bad guys arrive in the form of Carl Fogarty (Ed Harris), who is missing one eye, and attributes its loss to Tom, who he recognizes as gangster Joey Cusack from the old neighborhood in Philly, a revelation that exposes the monstrosity of his former life which threatens the stability of his marriage when Edie discovers who he really is, where this violent past continues to pose a threat lurking over the present even after the film is over.  Harris stalks him, very much like the high school bully that continues to pick on the son, until all hell break loose in each case, where the situation is resolved through unintended violence, but it gets the job done.  Or does it?  As there’s more bad guys where they came from.  Violence only leads to more violence, which sometimes seems like the only way, as without it, innocent individuals would continue be victimized and harmed, so at the very least, we understand and are willing to accept its place in our society, all precipitated here by seething male anger. 

Interesting that Cronenberg establishes some healthy marital sex, even after twenty years of marriage, which adds credibility to the vulnerability of the characters.  We see them when no one is looking, and they maintain their interest and intellect.  There are extended scenes of morally questionable sex balanced against extreme violence and death.  The complexity of Monica Bello’s performance is stunning, bewildered at the enormity of his deceit, remaining fierce and independent, yet she’s nearly raped by her husband with rough sex on the stairs, who turns into a monster to defend his family.  Again, this borders on rape, though the sex is consensual, despite elements of force, where we see her back is badly bruised afterwards, prompting Tom to ask jokingly, “What have you done with my wife?”  Turning into something else entirely, this movie is about an outsider suppressing the more grotesque excesses of his bloody past to fit into mainstream American life, where this newfound knowledge of her husband’s violent past unleashes new behaviors and emotions in her, which may as well be a metaphor for the film – unintended consequences.  As Tom has to come to terms with Joey, and all the ramifications of his so-called controlled violence, so too does his family and his town, as they’re all interconnected.  Summoned back to Philadelphia by his crime boss brother, Richie Cusack (William Hurt), who bluntly acknowledges “You’re living the American dream.  You really bought into it, didn’t you?” yet it is also a day of reckoning, in the very worst way, forcing him to deal with it in the only language the criminal underworld understands, extreme violence, which is jarring to say the least, but he didn’t exactly have much of an alternative, becoming a very real and unavoidable part of human existence.  This violent side disrupts the idyllic harmony of small town life in America, where everything is safe and good, a stark contrast to the violent lifestyle in the cities, where the apparent tension is a factor throughout the film, with both sides imperceptibly blending into one another without our noticing, offering redemptive possibilities.  The nauseating acts of violence are brutal, but not gratuitous, establishing the world as a dangerous place, and is juxtaposed against the innocence of Tom’s daughter awaking from a horrible dream with shadow monsters, which is clearly meant to subvert the world established by the film.  There is a brilliant and elegant pace and style throughout, economical and spare, without a single wasted frame, using Howard Shore music that sounds like Aaron Copland in Our Town, pure understated small town Americana, prideful, even heroic, yet mourning a faraway loss or regret, a reminder that death is a fundamental fabric of small town life.  An essential question this film asks is whether a person is allowed forgiveness for an immoral past after he demonstrates a genuinely reformed character and a willingness to live in society peacefully and even benevolently, but does not make legal reparations for specific crimes?  Cronenberg’s wordless interplay is astonishing, particularly at the end, which remains so ambiguous, played without dialogue, wondering who this man really is, questions that also gnaw at his family.  Is this film about the moral redemption of Tom, or about the moral downfall of his family?  More specifically, it asks us to consider the cost that must be paid to maintain the family as the moral center of the United States.  Americans have a long history of violence, suggesting we secretly crave what we publicly condemn, where the film may be less about forgiving and more about forgetting, questioning how many lies can we absorb to still remain true to ourselves?  

Who Am I This Time? - made for TV

 

Director Jonathan Demme

writer Kurt Vonnegut

WHO AM I THIS TIME? – made for TV                 A+                                                                 aka:  American Playhouse Theater TV                                                                                            USA  (53 mi)  1982  d: Jonathan Demme

I have become an enthusiast for the printed word again.  I have to do that, I now understand, because I want to be a character in all my works.  I can do that in print.  In a movie, somehow, the author always vanishes.  Everything of mine which has been filmed so far has been one character short, and that character is me.                                                                                      —Kurt Vonnegut on adapting his stories to film, from the preface of Between Time & Timbuktu, 1972

Among the very best and most intelligent made-for-TV adaptations from American Playhouse, an anthology of original dramatic films that premiered on PBS in 1982 and continued until 1994, where this film has been hidden in the weeds literally for decades.  It features phenomenal early performances from Susan Sarandon and Christopher Walken, which are so amazingly memorable that once you’ve seen them together, you’ll simply never forget them, which in addition to being a master class on acting is also an impossibly sweet love story.  Susan Sarandon was nominated for a Best Actress Academy Award in Louis Malle’s Atlantic City (1980), while Christopher Walken won a Best Supporting Actor Oscar in Michael Cimino’s THE DEER HUNTER (1978).  Both are utterly spectacular.  The source material is a 15-page short story by Kurt Vonnegut, Who am I this time?, originally published in the Saturday Evening Post in 1961, initially entitled My Name is Everyone, and was later included in a 1968 book of short stories called Welcome to the Monkey House, with a screenplay written by Morton Neal Miller, who doubled as a producer, a Chicago area businessman who shifted his career focus midlife while also owning a construction firm that specialized in renovating old Victorian buildings.  This is a reminder of the heights that literary adaptations can aspire to and actually achieve, and while it’s less than an hour in length, this remains among the top-tiered films you could ever hope to see.  Yes, it’s that good.  Unfortunately, it hasn’t been restored, as there’s no Blu Ray or high-res version.  After making MELVIN AND HOWARD (1980), receiving plenty of awards and critical acclaim, Jonathan Demme became a Hollywood director of note, where his work offers light and hope, created out of a deeply felt affection for people, insisting on their potential, embracing all possibilities.  This script was only handed to him ten days before shooting began, featuring the kinds of characters not usually featured much less expected to carry a film.  Essentially a story about people who inexplicably change their identity in order to flourish, it is set in small town America, which could literally be anywhere, as small towns are uniquely distinctive, filled with old world charm, but in this case it is a fictionalized North Crawford.  George Johnson (Robert Ridgely) makes a trip to the local telephone company to complain about being billed for a call to Honolulu that he never made, going so far as to suggest that no one in North Crawford has ever made a call to Honolulu.  The friendly woman behind the desk is someone he had never seen before, Helene Shaw (Susan Sarandon), who’s in charge of installing a new automatic billing system, going from town to town for the past two years, spending eight weeks in a new and different location teaching local girls how to run the new machine.  And while she apologizes for the mix-up, George is taken by her beauty and sweetness, but also her lack of natural expressiveness, asking very politely if she’d like to try out for a community theater group, as he’ll be directing an upcoming production of the Tennessee Williams play A Streetcar Named Desire.  Embarrassed initially, having never given anything like that a second thought, not staying in any one town long enough to establish roots, always remaining a stranger, yet her anonymity, in this case, is an attribute, as she’s a new and fresh face that local audiences have never seen before.

George then wanders over to the local hardware store, seeking out a clerk working in the back, Harry Nash (Christopher Walken in what remains his finest undiscovered role), a painfully shy young man who blends in seamlessly to the background, almost as if he’s not really there, who may as well be invisible in his Harold Lloyd glasses, hat, and bow-tie, yet he is the one constant in the community theater productions, as he always plays the lead role, captivating audiences in every performance, as he has a bombastic flair for the dramatics.  Yet as soon as the final curtain is pulled he disappears, retreating back into that shell of himself, hiding behind those glasses, as socially inept and uneasy with others as he could possibly be.  George treads very cautiously, asking if he would consider the lead role in the next play, which makes Harry extremely nervous, clearly agitated already, finally asking, “Who am I this time?”  Perhaps, unsurprisingly, Ms. Shaw wanders into the tryouts, sheepishly looking around at what looks like a local library, where George, a mild-mannered, aluminum siding salesman, warmly welcomes her, introducing her to Doris Sawyer (Dorothy Patterson), the woman who usually directs the plays, as they ask her to read a few lines of Stella, yet no matter how much they encourage her, she exhibits no emotion whatsoever, drawing on no personal experience, feeling as empty and alienated from the role as is humanly possible, that is, until Harry walks in, already inhabiting the persona of Stanley Kowalski, stripping down to his undershirt, demanding to know when he can audition, aggressively barking out words, as the lines literally explode out of his mouth, where the assault to the senses takes Ms. Shaw by surprise, completely taken aback by his unorthodox approach, taking her breath away, yet the fear he elicits quite naturally turns her into a stuttering and trembling Stella.  When the two of them read one of the play’s fight scenes together, the transformation is like night and day, where it’s suddenly fireworks between them, as she is absolutely transported and thoroughly confounded, touching passions and emotions inside herself she had never felt or even imagined.  Harry is actually a shy, clumsy introvert, but as Stanley he is on fire.  Helene falls hard for him, suddenly feeling weak in the knees, not just because of who he is but because of who she becomes with him.  Yet as soon as they’re done, he retreats back to that nebbish hardware clerk, shunning all contact with people, and literally disappearing before their eyes.  Helene, to say the least, is left stunned.  George and Doris look at each other with eyes of incredulous wonder, as they have themselves a show!  Knowing how much Vonnegut prizes individuality, he has a field day with the blank slates of these two underdeveloped yet highly likeable lead characters, literally paying homage to what theater can do, both embodying their respective roles, neither one with any social life to speak of, never feeling worthy enough on their own.  As described by Helene, “When I get to know somebody nice in real life, I feel like I’m in some kind of bottle, as though I can’t touch that person, no matter how hard I try.”

As the rehearsals progress, it’s clear Helene has grown quite fond of Harry, where he hilariously throws chairs, kicks over tables, while exuding that brute animal magnetism which has charmed its way into her heart, trying to share a picnic basket with him during a break, where it’s clear she’s brought too much, cutting cucumbers in the shape of a heart, so he only has a nibble, yet the queasy nature of just how uncomfortable this makes him is endearing, where it’s remarkable just how dramatically potent they are, where the spaces between the lines say everything, with Demme, who directs with a humanist sensibility, finding just the right balance of comic subtlety in their peculiarly developing relationship which seems founded on just how awkwardly ill at ease they are with themselves, taking comfort that there’s someone else out there to help them bear the load.  But as floundering as they are offstage, their onstage performances are electrifying, becoming a huge success.  Helene is so enthralled with what’s happening between them that she’s informed the telephone company not to move her anymore, as she’s finally staying put.  On opening night, the play is a huge success, as Helene receives a dozen red roses from her coworkers, but finds Harry has disappeared when she turns to give him one, wondering what she’d done to upset him so.  The secret, she discovers, is continuing to read plays together in order to keep Harry socially engaged with her, concluding, “This week I’ve been pursued by Marc Antony, and romanced by Henry Higgins, loved by Henry the Fifth, and I was just proposed to by Ernest Worthing.  Now, don’t you think I’m just about the luckiest girl in town?”  The early 60’s period detail is on point, from women’s hairstyles to storefront window displays, where small town life exudes such an expressive charm, beautifully shot by Paul Von Brack at Oakton School in Evanston and Hinckley, Illinois, never feeling condescending, though it’s given a low-budget TV aesthetic.  A story of two shy people without much personality who come alive onstage is a constant delight, as they go on adventures together in successive roles, where the true value of their performances is just how much fun they’re having, where it’s a bit like John Madden’s SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE (1998), where the superbly written dialogue becomes, in essence, who they are at that given moment, suddenly supercharged with emotions, always inhabiting the characters’ personas for the full run of the play, changing back to their normal selves afterwards.  It’s a miraculous search for identity that just glows with warmth and tenderness as they move from play to play, taking us on a literary adventure of our lifetimes, as the lines between their characters and real life blur, with viewers profoundly changed by the experience, where falling in love was never like this, but it feels so naturally authentic and genuine, with no real false notes to speak of, where this offbeat love story is a blissful hour of entertainment that puts many longer programs to shame, becoming a tour de force about theater, acting, and personality, which miraculously makes you appreciate the wonder of being alive.      

Who Am I This Time? | FULL MOVIE | Christopher Walken ... YouTube (56:02)