a restful sunday
Oct. 9th, 2005 09:32 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
verbicideThis weekend has been so utterly glorious.
Friday night with Jeff & Co. was great. I don't often get to see Chris and Brian, so it was particularly nice to hang out with them. We had dinner at Il Fornaio and then rushed to see A History of Violence.
David Cronenberg has said that this movie has three levels: the first level is about a suspect with a long history of violence, the second is the historical use of violence as a means of settling disputes, and the third is the innate violence of Darwinian evolution where the fittest survive. It's true, it does, but it doesn't handle those levels as well as it could have.
Movies like this are particularly hard for me to comment on since they are so intensely grim, and it's hard for me to enjoy a movie that leaves me feeling ill. But the performances were very good. I did have some trouble with the storyline and dialogue, and I'm curious what the graphic novel is like.
From the beginning of the movie, you know it's going to be fairly intense. Any time a little kid gets killed, you know the movie isn't planning on pulling its punches. I think it was fairly obvious that Tom is Joey, but I did hold out some hope that he wasn't. From the beginning, the family dynamics seemed odd to me, they didn't seem real. There was no reason explained for this family to be so awkward with each other, but their interactions seemed very stilted to me.
I did find it believable that Tom, aka Joey, doesn't want to fess up to his wife who he is, even after the Men In Black show up, but I found her reactions disturbing. Okay, so you find out that your husband is this ex-mobster, I can imagine shock and disbelief. But she went straight to rage, which surprised me a little. And the sex-on-the-staircase scene frankly annoyed me. I didn't understand her motivations for fucking him and then just striding off. This isn't some woman who loves bad boys getting carried away, this is a wife and a mother in a small town, and I found it hard to believe she'd be ready for a rage-fuck so soon after all this happened.
I also didn't expect to get confirmation that Tom was Joey until later on in the movie, so once it happened midway through, I wasn't sure where they would go with it.
I know not everyone analyzes and discusses things to death, but I found the family's complete silence dissatisfying. The whole segue way where he drives off to Philly and kills his brother and his henchmen had a few entertaining parts, but seemed a little superfluous and snapped what was left of my suspended disbelief. It would have been more interesting to watch the family attempt to repair itself (or fall apart) after the final showdown at their home. But we're cheated of this for some heavy-duty action. In general, I also found the dialogue weak, and even wonderful Viggo couldn't convincingly carry off some of the cheesier lines to his wife, particularly when trying to explain how his new life began with her.
Ultimately, our glimpses into the lives of Edie, the wife, are so shallow that none of her motivations are clear to me. She's got a young daughter and a son who has now tasted some profound ugliness, all in the space of two days. Why isn't there some discussion or concern about future attacks on her family (as she had no way of knowing what just happened in Philly). I know there are lines to examine here. We root for Tom when he kills two men, because he's defending himself and a group of people from violence. And later, when defending his family and home, he kills three more men, leaving Jack to save him by killing Fogarty. At that point, he's just whispered, "I should have killed you in Philly." And having received that confirmation, as Tom shifts to Joey, sympathy shifts because now it seems more like this is someone who is the author of his own trouble, no matter how long he's been running from it. And certainly when he drives out to Philly--Joey has completely taken over. It's this moral relativism that Cronenberg is clearly trying to drive home. Generally I'm against violence as a solution, but I certainly couldn't help but feel vicious satisfaction when young Jack, goaded by his father's heroism, kicks the ever-lovin'-shit out of that homophobic piece of shit kid and his weasely sidekick who have been tormenting Jack for far too long. Which is actually the point. We, in society, have an uneasy and shifting relationship with violence.
Regardless, as well as he makes that point, he misses the opportunity to create a better, more satisfying film.
Anyhow.
So that was interesting. I'm glad I saw it, but it was hard to watch.
I've already posted about Saturday, which ruled. Mark's party was fun. A group of us played this game where this handheld thingie has a word, which you have to get the group to say without saying the word itself and you pass it around and there's a buzzer. It was addictive. So mostly we played, we socialized and then eventually Jeff and I took off. It was nice to come home and watch tv and have breakfast at 11pm. Good times.
I slept in again this morning, read most of the last two Fables books. I got up to go swimming with Jeff, and afterwards we grabbed some lunch at the Alehouse and wandered around the Farmer's Market where I conned Jeff into buying me some gorgeous flowers. It was a really nice day out.
Then back home to do laundry, dishes, and I've started the joy of reformatting my pc. Which is taking forever for some reason. So I grocery shopped and tidied up my flat and everything is so clean and cheery.
This weekend really hit the spot after last week's mania. It's been the perfect blend of fun with friends and time alone at home--which I haven't had nearly enough of lately. I'm definitely slowing things down this week. The only thing I've got going is swimming and the Killer's concert on Wednesday night.
Friday night with Jeff & Co. was great. I don't often get to see Chris and Brian, so it was particularly nice to hang out with them. We had dinner at Il Fornaio and then rushed to see A History of Violence.
David Cronenberg has said that this movie has three levels: the first level is about a suspect with a long history of violence, the second is the historical use of violence as a means of settling disputes, and the third is the innate violence of Darwinian evolution where the fittest survive. It's true, it does, but it doesn't handle those levels as well as it could have.
Movies like this are particularly hard for me to comment on since they are so intensely grim, and it's hard for me to enjoy a movie that leaves me feeling ill. But the performances were very good. I did have some trouble with the storyline and dialogue, and I'm curious what the graphic novel is like.
From the beginning of the movie, you know it's going to be fairly intense. Any time a little kid gets killed, you know the movie isn't planning on pulling its punches. I think it was fairly obvious that Tom is Joey, but I did hold out some hope that he wasn't. From the beginning, the family dynamics seemed odd to me, they didn't seem real. There was no reason explained for this family to be so awkward with each other, but their interactions seemed very stilted to me.
I did find it believable that Tom, aka Joey, doesn't want to fess up to his wife who he is, even after the Men In Black show up, but I found her reactions disturbing. Okay, so you find out that your husband is this ex-mobster, I can imagine shock and disbelief. But she went straight to rage, which surprised me a little. And the sex-on-the-staircase scene frankly annoyed me. I didn't understand her motivations for fucking him and then just striding off. This isn't some woman who loves bad boys getting carried away, this is a wife and a mother in a small town, and I found it hard to believe she'd be ready for a rage-fuck so soon after all this happened.
I also didn't expect to get confirmation that Tom was Joey until later on in the movie, so once it happened midway through, I wasn't sure where they would go with it.
I know not everyone analyzes and discusses things to death, but I found the family's complete silence dissatisfying. The whole segue way where he drives off to Philly and kills his brother and his henchmen had a few entertaining parts, but seemed a little superfluous and snapped what was left of my suspended disbelief. It would have been more interesting to watch the family attempt to repair itself (or fall apart) after the final showdown at their home. But we're cheated of this for some heavy-duty action. In general, I also found the dialogue weak, and even wonderful Viggo couldn't convincingly carry off some of the cheesier lines to his wife, particularly when trying to explain how his new life began with her.
Ultimately, our glimpses into the lives of Edie, the wife, are so shallow that none of her motivations are clear to me. She's got a young daughter and a son who has now tasted some profound ugliness, all in the space of two days. Why isn't there some discussion or concern about future attacks on her family (as she had no way of knowing what just happened in Philly). I know there are lines to examine here. We root for Tom when he kills two men, because he's defending himself and a group of people from violence. And later, when defending his family and home, he kills three more men, leaving Jack to save him by killing Fogarty. At that point, he's just whispered, "I should have killed you in Philly." And having received that confirmation, as Tom shifts to Joey, sympathy shifts because now it seems more like this is someone who is the author of his own trouble, no matter how long he's been running from it. And certainly when he drives out to Philly--Joey has completely taken over. It's this moral relativism that Cronenberg is clearly trying to drive home. Generally I'm against violence as a solution, but I certainly couldn't help but feel vicious satisfaction when young Jack, goaded by his father's heroism, kicks the ever-lovin'-shit out of that homophobic piece of shit kid and his weasely sidekick who have been tormenting Jack for far too long. Which is actually the point. We, in society, have an uneasy and shifting relationship with violence.
Regardless, as well as he makes that point, he misses the opportunity to create a better, more satisfying film.
Anyhow.
So that was interesting. I'm glad I saw it, but it was hard to watch.
I've already posted about Saturday, which ruled. Mark's party was fun. A group of us played this game where this handheld thingie has a word, which you have to get the group to say without saying the word itself and you pass it around and there's a buzzer. It was addictive. So mostly we played, we socialized and then eventually Jeff and I took off. It was nice to come home and watch tv and have breakfast at 11pm. Good times.
I slept in again this morning, read most of the last two Fables books. I got up to go swimming with Jeff, and afterwards we grabbed some lunch at the Alehouse and wandered around the Farmer's Market where I conned Jeff into buying me some gorgeous flowers. It was a really nice day out.
Then back home to do laundry, dishes, and I've started the joy of reformatting my pc. Which is taking forever for some reason. So I grocery shopped and tidied up my flat and everything is so clean and cheery.
This weekend really hit the spot after last week's mania. It's been the perfect blend of fun with friends and time alone at home--which I haven't had nearly enough of lately. I'm definitely slowing things down this week. The only thing I've got going is swimming and the Killer's concert on Wednesday night.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-10-10 05:00 am (UTC)I think the son's plot parallels the father's nicely. Tom has spent so much time trying to banish the violence in his nature ("killing" it, as he says) that his son has grown up unable to conceive of such a response. It's only when his father shows him that violent action is in some cases justified (at least, by society's rules) that he strikes back against his tormentors. I think we're supposed to be alternately elated and horrified by his conversion - elated because he's asserting himself and resolving the issue, horrified because he's such a sweet character and we know that he's being uncharacteristically violent.
I think the character of Tom/Joey is just a dramaturgical device to externalize the conflict between savage and civilized in all of us. Rather than face the consequences of his violent past, Joey fled and created Tom, attempting to purge himself of all those tendencies which he found inconvenient and/or troublesome. In doing so, he created a life which was, essentially, a lie. It's only after he "takes care of" his past, and the truth is revealed about him to his family, that he is able (in that powerful last scene) to even approach being reintegrated into the family unit again, attempting to synthesize the man he was and the man he has become.
I think the two sex scenes bookend this transition rather nicely. It's no coincidence that the wife dresses up as a cheerleader - roleplaying of a sexual nature, but roleplaying nonetheless. This is similar to Tom's action in creating this new, non-violent life for himself. At the same time, the stairway scene (which my friends found disturbing and pointless) is a virtual rape, an act of violence which is just an extension of the combat which they were engaged in at that moment. I kept expecting her to say, "So is this how 'Joey' fucks someone?" It's the first tme he's made love to her violently, I imagine, the first time he's let that side of his nature out to her.
Some of the violence was hard to take. The old lady sitting next to me was laughing when William Hurt was kicking his fallen henchman in the side, but gasped when he shot him. Which, I think, sums up our attitude towards violence pretty well.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-10 05:29 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-10-10 06:18 am (UTC)What qualifies it as not being, ultimately, a rape? I mean, he was using sex as an act of violence against his wife. Just because she was acting against him as well, doesn't mean he didn't do it.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-10 06:22 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-10-10 06:29 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-10-10 06:38 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-10-10 06:42 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-10-10 06:49 am (UTC)I mean, it gets tiresome to see a topless woman faking her orgasm astride a groaning guy, swaddled by sheets. It's the same position everysingletime. So this was a nice, realistic departure.
And it was funny, the audience definitely reacted to it. There was all this murmuring as Viggo went to town on her.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-10 12:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-10-10 04:50 pm (UTC)And having heard a couple reviews of this movie from friends who've seen it, I think it's a very good thing that I am not the person you saw it with.