A History of Violence(2005) directed by David Cronenberg

Before delving into A History of Violence, it's best to understand the film's director, David Cronenberg. For the past 30 years, the Canadian Cronenberg has made films that have fallen into such genres as science fiction and horror. His films have usually been a clash between the two, bonded together by philosophy. In other words, his films are nothing like the Alien trilogy. While other directors in the genre, like John Carpenter(Halloween), were making so called monster/slasher films, Cronenberg was making completely different types of monster films. Rather than have monsters or psychotic killers chase young women, the monster in his films would be the body of the protagonist. Many of his films have a subtle nature vs. nurture concept. Because of this, his film's have often captured the battle between body and mind, where prescience leads to self destruction. Destruction, both physically and mentally, have been a focal point of his films and none the less memorable. That's because many of films contain graphic violence and sexuality. However, Cronenberg doesn't use this explicit content for just shock value. It's there for symbolic means. In his film, Scanners, there's an extremely graphic scene where a man's head literally explodes as a result of being tested on telepathically. This scene could easily be amongst the most vivid gore clips in the history of cinema. However, it's not that offensive. Simply because it makes sense within the context of the film. Cronenberg once explained that this particular scene was supposed to symbolize an energy that couldn't be contained within a mind. This is how Cronenberg's mind works. It's radical, honest and reasonable. He knows how to film near unfilmable ideas. Few Directors are as unique and focused in their realm of filmmaking. Most of David's original ideas(The Brood, Scanners, Videodrome) remain in the 80s. from 1990 up until now, he's successfully adapted many novels(The Naked Lunch, Crash, Spider) to the screen. His latest work, A History of Violence, is amongst his finest.

Tom Stall(Viggo Mortensen) and his family live in a small midwestern American town where he runs a local diner. Everything about Tom's life seems ideal for him. He has a beautiful loving wife named Edie(Maria Bello), two children, and he is a well respected member in his close knit community. One night, while Tom is closing at work, two outlaw killers decide to stop in. Not for food. Not for money. Only for a little fascist fun. Before the two begin to rape a waitress, Tom takes matters into his own hands. The result; a heroic self defense murder. One that grants Tom national attention along with a few unwanted visitors.

Trying to keep a low profile, Tom continues to live his life the way it was before. However, everyone can't stop talking about it, including his wife and son, Jack(Ashton Holmes). This is because the nature of Tom's actions created the buzz and not so much his will. One day, while Tom is busy working, a man with a slightly disfigured face named Carl Fogarty(Ed Harris) walks in and questions Tom's identity. Carl thinks Tom is someone else, a man named Joey. Tom insists that he is who he is. Carl, however, does not back down. Tom then asks Carl and his men to leave. When they do, the Stall family is forced into a world of paranoia, violence and confrontation.

A History of Violence gives the viewer a painfully refreshing perspective on the animalistic side of human beings. Though the title suggests that the film is about violence, there are many more underlying themes. However, violence is a reasonable place to start. The film doesn't contain that much violence though. The violence that is there, however, is graphic and realistic. It speaks a completely different language. One that gets under your skin and prompts questions regarding the nature of violence. Is every man capable of such violence? Is hostility in our nature? Personally, I've always felt that every man has the ability to be hostile. It's the way a man releases it that should be examined. After seeing this film, I've reexamined my own take on violence and even I have a question. Does the vitality of hostility dictate violence? It didn't appear so in the film. Tom's actions were instinct and controlled. It was so controlled and natural to the point that we, the audience, began to question who Tom Stall really is. Having felt this the way about violence, seeing a film that explores this perspective was quite satisfying. There's also a survival of the fittest mentality in the film that is self explanatory. The violence in the film is fairly focused and limited in discussion compared to other aspects of the film, such as Tom's family.

Tom's son, Jack, is a much more sensitive character. Jack is a passive teenager that lacks the jock mentality. He's not popular and he's not tough. He's a likeable character though. One we feel bad for when he gets bullied in the locker room by other jocks. In fact, bullied is far too soft of a term. His life is practically threatened by hostile peers. When Jack witnesses his dad's violent nature, he discovers a violent nature within himself. It's a self discovery that he takes advantage of on campus, while disappointing his dad. It's a interesting father+son relationship. However, not near as interesting as the relationship between Tom and his wife, Edie. In the first half of the film, we see a playful and happily married couple. A true friendship reveals itself quickly between the two. There's a sex scene where the two engage in a role play. She's dresses up as a high school cheerleader and they speak to one another like a teenagers. Later in the film, during the downward spiral, the two are arguing, near fighting. Right before they look as if they are about to attack one another, they embrace and have sex on a wooden staircase. However, it's hard to understand weather or not they are still fighting. It's very agressive. It's as if they are expressing their anger with their love. It's a very facinating scene that is very animalistic. It's a scene that only David Cronenberg could execute on film. You can tell it's a Cronenberg film by the sex scene alone. Like violence, the sexual content speaks another language. It almost always does in a Cronenberg film. This scene, a long with so many others are just brilliant.

The performances are realistic, intense and powerful. Cronenberg has given yet another intellectual thought provoking thriller. Very few films on the big screen have as much cinematic importance. I strongly recommend this film. It's a masterful study on the nature of violence, perception of identity, and family connection. From start to finish, A History of Violence is a disturbingly brilliant film.

B

A Map of the World(1999) directed by Scott Elliott

A Map of the World is a surprising little gem about a Mother of two named Alice(Sigourney Weaver) and her Husband, Howard(David Strathairn). They move to the countryside so Howard can pursue his dreams of becoming a farmer. While everything seems to be going well for Howard, Alice is struggling to adjust.

Alice works as a school nurse and becomes stressed with dealing with difficult children, including her two daughters at home. Alice's only friend, who she confides in, is named Theresa(Julianne Moore). Theresa, like Alice, is married with two daughters of her own. Despite Life's ordinary struggles, life for Alice seems to be ideal. That is until her life takes a turn for the worse.

When Alice's friend, Theresa leaves her daughters in her hands, one disappears. Within no time, Alice finds the little girl on the brink of death in an unfortunate accident on her property. The girl eventually dies and thus diffuses the bond between Alice and her friend while crippling her relationship to her husband. This moment of loss represses Alice as a mother, a wife and a human being. Everything shuts down.

The film has three movements. This repression marks the end of the first movement. The second movement begins when she is question by police regarding one of the difficult children she sees daily in her nurse's office. Alice is under such distress that she makes a number of suspicious remarks. There are also a number of flashbacks sequences regarding her interaction with this disturbed child. However, it isn't quite clear to the viewer what exactly happened. That is until much later in the film. There is one particular scene early in the film where Alice confronts the mother named Carole(Chloe Sevigny) about her child's problems. The Mother is a young irresponsible waitress. One who takes offense of Alice's remarks. When the death of Thersea's child becomes the talk of their small town, Carole takes advantage and reports that her child was sexually abused by Alice. Officers show up and arrest Alice.

While Alice is in jail, her husband has to helplessly take care of their children. That is a given. However, their community neglects after Alice, yet again, becomes to the talk of the town. Her high bail forces to Howard to consider selling his farm. While time is ticking for Howard, life is changing for Alice. She treats jail as a vacation. A time to justify what life means to her. She comes to terms with the truth. Not just in the court, but in her heart as well. When the complexity of her guilt and innocence is understood, the second movement of the film comes to an end. The third movement captures the aftermath of the trial. Life as she knew it before no longer exist. It's surprisingly better.

A Map of the World is a great exploration into the nature of Motherhood. The effects of loosing a child is a tragic situation. Not just because an innocent life is lost, but because a part of its mother is lost as well. It is a haunting realism that women face all over the world. In respect to the film's plot, Alice didn't even loose her child. Yet she was broken from it. Possibly because of the overwhelming fear she had for her own children. Perhaps it was the guilt of having it happen on her watch. It's up for debate. This brings me to another point. Any film worth debating is generally a good film. This indeed is a good film worth checking out, if it can be found.

As I mention before, A Map of the World is indeed a surprising gem. It's filled with powerful performances from Julianne Moore, David Strathairn, Chloe Sevigny and especially Sigourney Weaver.

B

Solaris(1972) directed by Andrei Tarkovsky

When Stanley Kubrick made 2001: A Space Odyssey(1968), a revolution started. The film, although very much a classic now, gave birth to contemporary sci-fi cinema. It was an epic masterpiece in every sense. The film contained overwhelming technical achievements including groundbreaking special effects. The film also showed audiences how much depth a vision can have, only to be magnified by George Lucus a decade later. Stanley Kubrick, however, is amongst the greatest and most influential film directors of all time. Kubrick's influence is arguably more international than in North America. It is known for a fact that 2001 had to of made a splash in Russia. This is because legendary Russian filmmaker, Andrei Tarkovsky made a film in slight response to 2001. That film is called Solaris.

After seeing 2001, Tarkovsky was impressed with the film for obvious reasons. However, he was a bit disappointed in the lack of emotions and spirituality within the characters. For anyone who's seen 2001, you probably know what he means. This gave him ideas and vision of his own. It might be hard to believe it considering he might not have ever thought of making Solaris because it's a sci-fi space epic similar to 2001. It's best to consider the two films allies. Now, what is exactly is Solaris about?

Solaris is about a psychologist named Kris Kelvin who is sent on a mission to a space station within the atmosphere of a planet called Solaris. He is sent to investigate the strange phenomenon that has taken over the space station crew. Solaris radiation seems to be the cause. However, it's results are near unfathomable. When Kris arrives, he quickly learns of its effects which includes the death of all but 2 crew members. However, these two are barely sane. Almost instantly, Kris starts to experience the phenomenon himself.

Solaris is a film that brings the audience into the dark recesses of Kris's consciousness. One important aspect that we learn in the beginning of the film is that it's be several years since the death of his wife. We watch Kris reunited with the memory of her. However, this is only the tip of the iceberg for what's to come. More importantly, the questions to come.

Solaris is a film that is much more than a space epic. It's much more than a love story. It's a commentary on the phenomenal aspects of human life. Those aspects we can feel but can't explain. It's the spiritual aspects. While Kris struggles to redefine love, truth, and Humanity, the film prompts the same questions for the audience. The beauty of it, like philosophy itself, is that there is no universal answer. It's all perception. Solaris allows us perceive Kris's perception. It's a film that is very much within itself. It's quite brilliant and in my humble opinion, more important than 2001. However, as I mentioned before, 2001 and Solaris are of relation to one another. They compliment each other.

Solaris is as much of a philosophical masterpiece as it is a work of science fiction. It's out there for any one is willing to loose themselves in a character's consciousness. It's frighteningly beautiful.

A+