A History of Violence: a movie with a message
Mods: the self-defense portrayed in this movie is almost exclusively carried out with a variety of firearms. Several autoloaders and a SxS shotgun. Most of the "graphic" shots in the movie are a result of gunfire and the make-up crew for this movie really earned their pay. If this isn't enough a connection to guns, please feel free to move the post as you see fit. Thanks.
Ok, so it's not really a review but this movie deals with some aspects of protecting self and family with lethal force. Cronenberg took some guff from more conservative viewers who said the movie was too graphic. First, that's one of the beautiful things about Cronenberg's style is that it doesn't flinch. Secondly, and this is the reason for this post, Cronenberg responded publicly to the guff in a WIRED magazine article saying, "if you want the exhilaration of seeing the bad guys go down, then you have to accept the consequences."
When the bad guys go down, the camera doesn't politely look away so that every man in the audience can have a cozy hero fantasy. It shows them the aftermath. The hero doesn't just get carried out on the shoulders of the crowd yelling, "HOORAY", he has to look at what he's done. From there the movie departs from this theme to some extent. But, it's there in the first half, to be sure.
That seems to ring true to what many of you on this forum write about lethal force. So, just thought I'd throw this out there and see what you all think. Should it be portrayed in full color or should movie makers shield the public from the reality of the situation. I vote the former. Lemme know what you think.
By the way, if I didn't already say so, this is a fantastic movie and I highly recommend it. However, it is not a "family" movie so you may want to go solo or with a buddy and leave the lady and any applicable kids at home.
Mods: the self-defense portrayed in this movie is almost exclusively carried out with a variety of firearms. Several autoloaders and a SxS shotgun. Most of the "graphic" shots in the movie are a result of gunfire and the make-up crew for this movie really earned their pay. If this isn't enough a connection to guns, please feel free to move the post as you see fit. Thanks.
Ok, so it's not really a review but this movie deals with some aspects of protecting self and family with lethal force. Cronenberg took some guff from more conservative viewers who said the movie was too graphic. First, that's one of the beautiful things about Cronenberg's style is that it doesn't flinch. Secondly, and this is the reason for this post, Cronenberg responded publicly to the guff in a WIRED magazine article saying, "if you want the exhilaration of seeing the bad guys go down, then you have to accept the consequences."
When the bad guys go down, the camera doesn't politely look away so that every man in the audience can have a cozy hero fantasy. It shows them the aftermath. The hero doesn't just get carried out on the shoulders of the crowd yelling, "HOORAY", he has to look at what he's done. From there the movie departs from this theme to some extent. But, it's there in the first half, to be sure.
That seems to ring true to what many of you on this forum write about lethal force. So, just thought I'd throw this out there and see what you all think. Should it be portrayed in full color or should movie makers shield the public from the reality of the situation. I vote the former. Lemme know what you think.
By the way, if I didn't already say so, this is a fantastic movie and I highly recommend it. However, it is not a "family" movie so you may want to go solo or with a buddy and leave the lady and any applicable kids at home.
Last edited:
