How does violence linger between the boundaries of good and evil for the order of life and for people in different situations? Tom (Viggo Mortensen) is the head of a very ordinary family in a small town who runs a small shop for a living. One day, he met the gangsters who came to rob. In order to save the life of his buddies, Tom worked hard to kill these uninvited guests. His heroism and martial arts became a topic that people talked about. The media reports on the matter also put the Tom family naked in the public eye. Whether this incident changed the original Tom, or made Tom return to his original self, no one can tell - because Tom's past gradually surfaced. The underworld boss came to the door with his subordinates, which meant that Tom would no longer be able to hide his identity who had been in close contact with violence. Wife Eddie (Maria Bello) is very angry when she learns about her husband's secret; to make matters worse, Tom sees that the haze of violence is gradually engulfing his son; violence once again completely sneaks into the otherwise peaceful life .
For this film, the ultimate impact of violence is also a theme for David Cronenberg.
Viggo Mortensen's father, who goes into incognito, is mostly negative about his past, especially about violence. This is evident in his strictness about his son. But in the end, after the unexpected violence, the father killed the robber and was praised. This had a profound impact on his son, and directly caused him to use violence on campus to deal with his grievances with his classmates. He later went straight to the gun to deal with the underlying motivation of the gangster, played by Ed Harris.
To a certain extent, the son's marked tendency to violence also confirms the failure of the father's efforts, and David Cronenberg's confirmation of the nature of violence in further proof of humanity.
Relatively speaking, the character of the mother seems to be a little unsmooth in the face of violence. From the first approval of her husband's killing of the thug to the final horror of the crisis facing her family, she approached everything from a concern about herself and her family.
When the violence is almost uncontrollable, it eventually becomes almost out of control. However, one detail in the film still hints at the woman's ambiguity about violence. What this jaw-dropping scene wants to express is still the most primitive violence in the human world about the surrender of women. The main thing is that women do not resist more violently in this scene, to a certain extent. It can even be assumed that she is enjoying this kind of violence.
This point has a strong suggestive effect on the violence of the female characters in this film, and it is also one of the main reasons why the family is "reconciled as before" in the film. However, is it really "reconciled" after all? David Cronenberg doesn't want to make an ending where violence can handle everything.
In the film, Viggo Mortensen is at the dinner table in panic. His son and wife have no language, only the little daughter who is not familiar with the world is helping him.
Such an ending seems to have returned to normal, but in fact it is a hint that it will be permanently difficult to return to normal. Especially in the hearts of the wife and son, the impact of this violence will directly affect the future days and conditions. For this family, it is impossible to return to the bland but beautiful middle-class life.
David Cronenberg is telling the audience that the effects of violence, once they occur, are hard to contain, and that, under violence, even if the problem is temporarily dealt with, too many things are permanently changed. . .
View more about A History of Violence reviews
