A History of Violence

goldenhound32 said:Why wouldn't that matter? I mean, why couldn't the main character just shoot them and have them clutch their hearts and fall over with a dramatic expression—like in movies from fifty years ago? Even if the movie isn't about violence and the shooting is just some random side thing, it would still matter to me.
So, if something is poorly done, unrealistic, or naive, we just shrug and say "it doesn't matter" and call it a day...

Oh, here we go with the classic false dilemma... read that part about the Titanic again. Maybe the font was ugly, but who actually cares? That’s not going to explain why the ship sank (or didn't, if we're asking Jessica Nguyen85)... get it? ;-)
...

Caught it, and I was the only one in the theater. 😁 Never had that happen before. Usually there's at least a handful of people, but being totally solo in a Broadway cinema... that's a first. Whatever though... honestly, this is his best Cronenberg work since The Fly, maybe even better since I was just a kid back then.
Anyway, that final scene hit hard. It really ties everything together, and Viggo Mortensen's eyes were basically the definition of "hope." That part where he feeds them was pretty pathetic—I wouldn't be surprised if he swallowed a little girl too, but the stuff with his son went way too far.

Jose Miller17 said:Maybe the font was ugly or the bio was weak, but who honestly cares? None of that is going to explain why the ship went down—unless we're looking for answers from Jessica Nguyen85, apparently... you know what I mean? ;-)

Even if the protagonist had murdered all three of them, would you still just shrug and say "who cares"? There has to be a line somewhere, a point where you finally have to admit, "Okay, this is actually too much."

Jessica Nguyen85 said:Some of the scenes are just visually stunning—they hit you emotionally without needing a single line of dialogue. You learn so much more about who these characters actually are through those silent moments. Take that scene between Tom (Viggo Mortensen) and Edie (Maria Bello), for instance; it really drives home how most of an intense connection is driven by this deep, internal landscape of fear and dominance—about 95% pure imagination, I’d say—while the physical part is almost purely primal.

If you're thinking of that staircase scene, I think you might have completely misread what was happening there. 👎

Honestly, that scene has a totally different point than the one you're making, which feels a bit weak, if I'm being honest. 🤮

goldenhound32 said:Even if the protagonist ended up killing all three of them, would you still just shrug and say "who cares"? I mean, at some point, you really have to draw a line in the sand and admit, "Okay, this is actually going too far."

What are you even rambling about? 🙄

Man, I don't know... that whole scene where the guy is trying to act tough, then he trips over his own chair and ends up sprawled out on the floor—and then the guy who's supposed to be taking him out just kicks him in the knee so he's left writhing there... it felt so pathetic to me, you know? I guess I was just thinking, why didn't the other guy just stand his ground? Honestly, if it were me, I probably would have just stepped up...🙂

But hey, whatever. 😎

if you’re talking about that staircase scene, you completely missed the mark here.

The whole thing has an entirely different point than whatever you're trying to pull, which is honestly kind of pathetic.

Moguce is possible... though I guess that's just subjective... how we all perceive certain scenes within the context of a movie. I don't know... to me, it felt like right after she slapped him and he lunged for her neck, everything just shifted into this high-tension sexual moment... idk... feels like a nod to the idea that sex and violence are intertwined. I won't get too deep into the weeds with the analysis, but sex has always been about power plays and dominance. If you compare that staircase bit to the earlier scene where the 69 position was clearly about pure pleasure, then the staircase scene takes that dynamic to a much more intense level. I think both scenes serve a purpose regarding how people react to someone displaying violent traits—whether those traits are justified or not. Also, keep in mind the 69 scene happened earlier, back when she actually knew who her husband really was.

Alright, your turn... let's hear what you actually think this time.😉

Jessica Nguyen85 said:. I think it points toward the idea that sex and violence are intrinsically linked. I won't dive too deep into a full analysis right now, but sex has always been used as a way to express power and dominance.

AU... well, it's probably for the best that you aren't going into a full-blown analysis—otherwise, someone might just start throwing things at you.

He wanted sex because he needed to convince himself that everything was okay—but she isn't okay, because things clearly weren't okay. She goes along with it, sure, but then she gets her revenge immediately after the act, simply because he FORCED her into it.

As for how much they both actually enjoyed it? Well, that seems pretty obvious from the very next scene where we see her back.

Anyway, good luck with those theories of yours. 👋

He wanted sex just to convince himself everything was fine now—but it wasn't. She isn't fine because things aren't okay. She goes along with it, sure, but then she gets her revenge right after the act, because he basically forced her into it.

You really have to learn how to tell the difference between what’s actually happening on screen and just making up some subjective interpretation of an event. The fact is, she accepted the sex; she wasn't forced at all, and you can see that clearly... so, yeah, your whole theory just falls apart.

How much they both enjoyed it is pretty obvious from the next scene where you see her back.

Seems like you might have a point there... I mean, who else brings pain and sexual pleasure into a relationship like that? 🙄

When I put everything you just said together... honestly, it feels like you were watching a completely different movie. Plus, you're being pretty rude. You come across like a total brat... so... go away.

Jessica Nguyen85 said:and that you're quite rude, too...

So that’s your take, huh? I’m noticing there are plenty of people here who think the same way.

That staircase scene (in my opinion)... she hits him with this sudden burst of misguided confidence, clearly thinking it's 'the right thing to do' in that moment—you know, a little ego trip—but then she just completely folds under his intense passion immediately after.

Gregory Garcia said:It’s pretty obvious just how much they were both getting into it from that next shot where you see her back.

I didn't really get the impression that she was being forced into anything either. Sure, things start off feeling a little tense when he has his hand on her neck, but it definitely doesn't come across as sexual assault.

Those bruises on their backs are actually real, because they weren't able to use any soft padding on the stairs during the shoot.

Jose Miller17, I didn't say he was a loser—I just meant his whole point was pathetic.

Look, if he touches me or tries to shut me down, then I’m going to react exactly the way I did. That's just how it goes, I guess.

Regarding my last point, the post at the top of this thread includes a quote from the newcomer that I was primarily responding to—mostly because, in my opinion, his take is just completely off base (and honestly, he seemed to be carrying that same impression over from the previous page).

Now, if I'm the only one here who feels like that scene was basically coerced sex, while everyone else thinks it’s great and wants to promote it that way, it doesn't mean I'm wrong or that I'm being rude. You can't exactly handle stupidity with kid gloves, right?

So, go ahead—delete it.

Let’s try to keep the discussion at a decent level here. If you find yourself disagreeing with someone, please take a moment to actually explain your reasoning instead of just being dismissive. Rather than just quoting a post, maybe try something like, "wow, what a tragic little interpretation you've got there," and then seal the deal with a 🤮 smile—which, as many people on this forum tend to think, is the ultimate sign of a well-articulated point backed by solid arguments.

Gregory Garcia said:Look, am I really the only one who felt like that whole situation was basically just sexual coercion? Everyone else seems to think it's totally fine and is actually helping promote that kind of thing.

Just let Release Crofag write whatever nonsense they want...

It seems we’ve fallen into a familiar pattern here—one where people tend to argue over whether the characters or the plot are the superior element. It’s a bit paradoxical, really, since both are essential components of the same machine: A History of Violence.

By "characters," I mean the people inhabiting the story (which, let's be honest, is a movie about characters!), and by "plot," I mean the actual sequence of events. To be fair, focusing on the plot doesn't make much sense given how secondary it feels to me, which probably explains why Americans seem so fascinated by this particular film. Since the narrative takes a backseat to my final verdict, I'll leave it at that.

So, the characters.

The brightest spot in the entire production is Edie, the protagonist's wife. She delivers a brilliant and, above all, REALISTIC portrayal of a small woman from a small town. When her quiet life suddenly shifts into the realm of a horror movie, she unexpectedly becomes formidable. It serves as a blunt reminder of what anthropology teaches us, regardless of modern social movements: at her core, she is the protector of the home first, and everything else second.

Then there is Tom / Joey, the lead. He draws a very sharp—if somewhat unrealistic—line between the life dictated by his upbringing and the one he consciously chooses. What I personally think about such a drastic transformation is a question far too complex for a casual discussion on this forum, so I'll stick to the facts: Mortensen's performance isn't bad at all. In fact, it's quite good.

Finally, there is Jack, the son. As a direct consequence of his father's actions, he undergoes his own transformations—changes that most casual viewers cannot help but find intense. However, because his arc feels the least grounded, I'll focus on the film's broader message: the violence we encounter, whether by choice or chance, during certain periods of our lives leaves a mark that lasts for the entire lifetime. The real question is how that internal resistance, or that survival instinct, will eventually manifest.

All in all, the movie (with Maria Bello as Edie, Cronenberg's stylized violence, the pacing, the cinematography...) is solid.

But it isn't quite enough to break into my Top Five for the year.

Finally, the thread is actually moving... As a newcomer, I feel like both sex scenes serve as a commentary. The first one is basically a foreshadowing of what’s coming; they start playing different roles right then. It's just for that moment, sure, but if you know what's ahead, it's pretty symptomatic... To me, it almost feels like they're subconsciously summoning the devil. The second scene is just an escalation of the first, and we see the same thing again: the role reversal. She ends up with this "new, aggressive" husband, which is why it feels so edgy. She’s clearly hooked on how much he turns her on, even if he's completely wrecking their perfect little world.

Seathorn said:I don't get how this guy can just take out three mobsters and have some small-town sheriff just shrug it off without any actual investigation. It makes zero sense.

I was stuck on that too while watching, especially when the sheriff just walks away once the wife takes his side.
It feels like Cronenberg spent way too much energy on the violence and the link between brutality and attraction—like how the guy becomes a hero after beating up those thugs and suddenly he's more irresistible to his wife—rather than focusing on the plot or basic logic. Especially that scene at the guy's house... 2.5/5.

Man, I warned you guys about the spoilers.😁

The movie is such a brilliant, sneaky little satire. Was I really the only one laughing out loud in the theater?

Honestly, a couple of days ago, I wasn't even sure if I had actually "gotten" everything. But then I stumbled upon a quick interview with Cronenberg, and suddenly it all clicked—I realized my brain was actually on the right track after all.

Richard Hernandez13 said:The movie is this incredibly sharp, sneaky satire. Was I really the only one laughing in the theater?

A couple days ago, I wasn't even sure if I actually "got" it. Then I stumbled onto a quick interview with Cronenberg and realized my brain isn't broken after all.

Satire of what, though? Seriously, I'm curious. Satire of the American way of solving every single problem with brute force?

White said:Watched the movie yesterday and it actually holds up...
Some things could have been handled differently, but let's not nitpick...
I’d go as far as saying it’s one of the best movies of the year, right after Closer...

👍

I downloaded A History of Violence a month ago, but after seeing how it compares to Closer, I think I'll pass...

That Closer is honestly one of the dumbest movies ever made. Barely made it past the 20-minute mark...

...comparisons? hmmm...I'm coming up empty here—there's really nothing they have in common...
...but look, A History of Violence...it's a solid movie, some gorgeous scenes, and the violence is beautifully stylized...definitely worth checking out 👍