Hey, everyone! It’s Story Sunday again and today I’m talking about A History of Violence. This movie came out in 2005 while I was still in high school. Over the years, this movie has really stuck with me. It’s a story that I enjoy.

The plot is a pretty classic idea and one that occurs fairly often in movies in books. The main character, Tom Stall (played by Viggo Mortensen), is a man with a secret past. He lives in a small town, has a family, owns a little diner, and is known as a man of the community. One day, a couple of people try to rob his store at gunpoint. He’s willing to let the money go but can’t stand by as they begin to threaten other people in the diner. Stall kills them, the media puts his face in the news, and his past begins to catch up with him.

One thing that sticks out in my mind is how he kills the men in the diner. It’s a great scene. He kills the men, obviously reveals some experience with a gun, but does so without looking like Jason Bourne. Too often, in a story where the main character has a violent past, the audience is shown someone who looks like they should’ve been hired by the government for their extreme abilities. Tom Stalls violent past involved being a thug of sorts, and as a thug, he’s familiar with weapons and violence but he’s not James Bond.

Does the story work?

Honestly, I think the story works on some very simple levels. The plot itself is straightforward because the focus is truly on the character of Tom Stall. If you don’t expect a plot with lots of twists and turns, I think you’ll really see what the story has to offer through the main character.

Why does it work?

It’s not complex but I don’t think that’s really the point. The issue on display is who we are clashing with who we may have been. The idea of who we really are, who we want to be, and the conflict of opposing identities. Where does Tom really fall in regard to being a person? Is this new identity truly fake or is it who he really is, who he has become?

David Cronenberg’s style of directing and storytelling resonates with me. I’m sure I’ll talk about a few of his other movies on this blog eventually. I’m also a big fan of Viggo Mortensen. I think he’s an amazing actor and brings a lot to this character in this role. Without giving away the ending, I will mention something about it. There’s very little time spent on wrap up. When the conflict ends, the movie ends. Some people didn’t care for this ending but I really liked it. While some things were resolved, issues of identity and forgiveness were left open. An open ending can be annoying, believe me. However, in this case I think it allowed the reader to come to their own conclusions about the characters and the path set before them. Eastern Promises, another Cronenberg movie, has a very similar ending.

Here’s a link to the trailer… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74FdnDxptH4 If you’ve never seen it, I think it’s worth checking out. The movie isn’t for everyone but I enjoyed it and you might too.

Now it’s your turn. What do you think? Have you seen the movie? Have you seen Cronenberg’s other films? Have you seen Mortensen’s other films? When you see a movie or read a book, do you prefer complete closure from an ending?