14 / A History of Violence / David Cronenberg

"What makes A History of Violence unsettling to the last is its uneasy relationship to genre: is it a thriller, a family drama, a bleak comedy, or a trans-generic allegory ('the Bush administration's foreign policy based upon a western')? This generic hesitation means that it is a film suffused with the uncanny. Even when the standard motions of the thriller or the family drama are gone through, there is something awry, so that A History of Violence views like like a thriller assembled by a psychotic, someone who has learned the conventions of the genre off by heart but who can't make them work. Perversely, but appropriately for a Cronenberg picture, it is this 'not quite working' that makes the film so gripping." - Mark Fisher, When we dream, do we dream we're Joey?

Before I write about A History of Violence I just want to point anyone in the direction of this extremely thoughtful review of the film by Mark Fisher, which I have quoted about as it raises a lot of extremely interesting points in a much more succinct way that I ever could. So with that disclaimer I just want to explore a couple of things that struck me about the film. There are so many layers of possible understanding and allegory to this film that it's hard to even know where to start, even the title A History of Violence seems to say many things. I originally read it as meaning, a literally history of violence, in the way you would read, a history of romans. Although about half way through the film I realised there was another reading, as in meaning, this man has a history of violence. While I feel like the second os the more obvious reading for what the film is actually about, I dont think it invalidates my first reading. Looking at the film it could easily be read as an allegorical tale of the history of violence. Especially within the context of idyllic small town american society. You start of by getting a very clear picture of good and bad, good then defeats bad, but that's where everything goes awry. Violence begets violence and everything spins out of control. The good happens to have a history of maybe not being so good. How can you even prescribe good and bad within such complex creatures as human beings? These are questions that  I find myself musing over when thing about stuations in America at the moment, with the current rash of mass shootings and gun nuts saying the way to stop them is by putting more guns into good peoples hands, which as Cronenberg shows in this film, isn't really a very easy thing to do. There are obviously many other levels to this film, a lot of which Mark Fisher wonderfully explores in the article mentioned earlier. For me though, the exploration of mans relationship to violence, and especially weapons in american culture is the defining point of this film. A point  made beautifully by the poster, putting not the stars of the film, but the gun at centre stage, the starring character of the film.