Notes on a Second Viewing – A History of Violence

• Though Cronenberg claims to have been unfamiliar with the film’s graphic novel source material, his compositions regularly invoke comic book panels – such as a Leone-esque shot from Tom Stall’s hip during his front lawn stand-off with Carl Fogarty (above), or a climactic master shot of the entranceway to Tom’s home in which Richie’s body lies flat on the ground and Mortensen’s gun-in-hand can be seen poking out of the doorway. That said, these comic book-ish compositions are themselves modeled after images from classic Western and crime films, two Hollywood genres that AHoV is both indebted to and interested in subverting/critiquing.

• I didn’t notice it the first time around, but the name “Stall” is a really nice touch, as it subtly captures Joey’s (ultimately futile) attempts to block/impede his violent (former) self.

• Ashton Holmes’ performance is still the film’s weak link, though the moment in which his breakfast is interrupted by Tom racing into the house (thinking that Fogarty has come to kill his family) exudes a measure of believably sudden, childlike fear that films rarely show (or accurately capture) in teenage characters.

• Cronenberg’s formal mastery is impressive throughout. But that opening, extended tracking shot of the two killers outside the motel (and in their car) is truly in a class by itself.

• Maria Bello really holds the film together as Tom’s wife Edie, and not just in the two incredible sex scenes. Her performance during the scene in which the sheriff confronts Tom about his true identity, and she backs up his lie, is superbly handled. Kudos also to Peter MacNeill as the sheriff, whose initial “So that’s the way it’s gonna be” smile when he realizes Edie is going to endorse Tom’s deception shifts to a look of uncomfortable, embarrassed meekness when Edie begins sobbing – the lawman caught between thinking that she’s lying, but incapable of calling her out because there’s a chance, however slight, that her tears (and story) are genuine and any further query might truly upset the situation.

Comments

[rob]

A second viewing was necessary for me to go from liking "A History of Violence" to falling head-over-heels in love with it, although most of the points you mention eluded me even then. You're right: Holmes is the only member of the cast who I wouldn't commend, but his mawkishness was close enough to true youthful angst that it didn't bother me. I'll pay closer attention to the comic book compositions next time; from what I recall, most thrilling to watch were the compositions and encounters that seemed to simulate a rendition of the American dream that was about to collapse like a deck of cards, unbeknownst to all who were relishing in it.

BTW: I'd been planning my own "Take Two" review of "The Departed" (liked it more, still not Best Picture or Director worthy). Now it's gonna look like I'm copying! :)

[Rob Baker]

I recently revisited this film again as well Nick. The first time I saw it, over a year ago in theatre, I liked it but failed to connect with it on an emotional level. I think it was because I thought the entry point into the film was Tom himself. All of the other characters centred around him to me. Upon the second viewing, I saw everything from Edie's point of view and my opinion changed drastically. Her protectiveness over the children, her frantic and confused loading of the family shotgun, the dawning on her that her husband is not who he seems, followed by the trip to the hospital room bathroom, these scenes hit home with me the most with take two.

On a sidenote, have you visited Girish's blog recently? He has a great entry about re-viewing films. Very good stuff!

[Nick]

Funny that both of you (Robs) mentioned liking AHoV more the second time around, since that's sorta what motivated me to write the piece (although my first thoughts about starting a "second viewing" column began after re-watching The Fountain).

As my original review makes clear, I liked the film the first time around - hell, it was the unofficial #11 entry on my 2005 Top Ten list. But somehow, it just seemed to work much more naturally and forcefully this time, which was something of a surprise given that I was only semi-interested in revisiting it in the first place.

Thanks for the heads-up about Girish's blog - I hadn't yet seen his new post about re-viewings. Strange (but nice) coincidence.

And Rob H., feel free to copy away. Especially about The Departed, which is certainly a film I'll be seeing again once it hits DVD.

[Rob Baker]

How was the second viewing of the Fountain Nick? I'm almost afraid to watch it again. The first time I saw it, the film was like a delicate flower that could wilt at any time if given too much water, sunlight, or shade. I feel Aronofsky pulled it off in the end, and left the theatre very satisfied, but on the second viewing it might wither and die before my eyes or become deeper and richer.

I cherish my first viewing experience of it, and don't want to jeopardize it. Any thoughts Nick? Was it better second time around?

[Nick]

The Fountain held up remarkably well. In fact, the second viewing is what convinced me to put it on my Top Ten list.

More detailed impressions about Aronofsky's latest will likely arrive once the film hits DVD and I watch it again (which, I guess, would be Notes from a Third Viewing, but whatever).

[rob]

Re: The Fountain x2. Same here. The first time left me impressed but not in love with it. The second time I became more aware of its "flaws" but even more appreciative of its feeling and scope: it felt like an opera conducted in a completely different kind of chamber, where the sound was admittedly different but no less remarkable.