yeah if i remember correctly its only something that the cop asks him about but we never see any evidence that points there - i think he wasnt a relocated witness he was part of the crime world and managed to escape it and go under the radar for many years
15:00 About that scene at the lake. First, I'm so stoked you picked it out, I think it's one of the most symbolical ones in the movie! Second, Joey actually gets on his knees, arguably to wash the blood off, but for me it's a scene with strong biblical symbolism. As you mentioned, the killing of the older brother, and now this immersion in water to me refers to baptism, a transformation through ritual, which in this case is a violent and murderous one, and in the closing close-up of Mortensen conveys expertly the ambiguity of the efficacy of this ritual, and the doubtful prospects of a normal future for Tom with the family.
I would have to go as far as saying this movie is excellent. And Viggo was fantastic in it. A very well done movie. And the violence wasn’t too far fetched.
It's incorrect to say that Tom murders the two killers in the cafe. He was defending his staff and customers from potential harm; which is proven by the two's actions in the intro.
I've heard a few people say this film is nothing like Cronenberg's earlier work, but I disagree, I think this film perfectly describes what a Cronenberg film is! It's not sci-fi/horror, but that doesn't mean it's not a true Cronenberg film!
It is a shift of tone from his 80's and 90's stuff, but that said not surprising. He already displayed interest in more grounded psychological themes in 2002 with Spider. No surprise it was followed with History... and A Dangerous Method.
Your review and thoughts in general are very clear, precise and interesting. With this kind of work, your page is underrated in this case. Keep up the good work.
The movie storyline is a metaphor for how America, like Tom Stawell, convinces itself into the role of an innocent, law abiding member and leader of the world community, when in fact it has been, again like Tom, a perpetrator of great violence and damage to much of the world around it. Like Tom, America strives to show itself as a decent, law abiding world citizen, when in fact it has been the opposite in the eyes of many.
Nice analysis. I particularly liked your superhero analogy--I've always thought that being a superhero would be horrible. All the responsibility, if you take a rest people die, you have to hide your identity to protect your loved ones--very analogous. And making violence real brings the horror of being a hero into focus. Good stuff. All the best.
I'm really glad he brought up the shadow self because did anyone else notice the symbolism in the beginning of the movie when Sarah wakes from her nightmare about Shadow Monsters??? Alot of symbolism there.
I was on the edge of my seat regarding this film. I'd say 10 out of 10. You must be a fan of the genre. And Ed Harris!? I also loved "Eastern Promises." To think, the same director and star in two excellent films back to back. I was really impressed.
Very well done, friend. I remember taking a date to see this (our second date) as she was excited to see it; she most certainly did NOT understand the ending. Years later, I'm not still not sure if she ever got it...Just like Tom I suppose. I don't need closure; stories that provide a comfortable ending don't tend to stay with me after a viewing, I've noticed. Thanks for this.
I enjoyed this analysis a lot. It's a shame that this video doesn't get as much traction as the big ytbers but I hope you can continue to do more of this. I loved it very much and thank you very much for this
I know this is a two year old video but I gotta say you turned me around on this film. I like to consider myself a movie connoisseur but I always gave this a six out of ten too. I remember being mildly disappointed in this film. But your analysis has made me rethink my rating. I will be giving it a rewatch very soon and I am most definitely now a subscriber. Thanks
You can hide violence, build a life that does not contain violence. But you’ll always have the idea of breaking someone’s leg or choke slamming them into the ground. It’s self control.
I stopped living life that way a long, long time ago, and I still find myself constantly sizing people up around me and imagining what I would do in a situation. Maybe even like to do? Being a human can be a strange thing.
@@Groovy_Bruce It is either that those people you are sizing up are intimidating or threatening to you or you are lacking in self worth, either physical or mental. In any case it is a threat response. It is not natural to do it all the time and it will deplete you from the inside. You should size people up only when violence is inevitable. Or else you should refrain from it. If you are doing it constantly then it is a sign of weakness. P.S. I am not trying to say that you are weak or less than anybody, it is just psychology of fighting. You could be extremely strong physically but will still loose, if your mind is not trained. Therefore, loosing your mind, which is exactly what you are doing when you enter the Fight or Flight response constantly, will completely destroy your mind and make you incapable of fighting correctly.
Women have surprisingly violent natures also. This movie doesn't really explore that, but they can be just as vicious and deadly as men, but usually through backstabbing and subterfuge.
The typical discussion of "violence" speaks of it from a detached place, as though it is some foreign or alien invention imposed on us. The term "violence" is merely a description of a force of nature as common and real as rain. Violence simply is. How it it manifests is as interesting as discussing the various ways that rain manifests. What's more perhaps more interesting is discussing how the consequences of violence are managed. Like dealing with the consequences of a typhoon or a hurricane. You conflate animalistic and violence as conjoined terms as though being an animal is only to be denigrated and that only animals engage in violence. The struggle to simply exist is a violent process. Nothing living on this planet survives by laying down and allowing. Even a sloth has to struggle against predation. Your conflation and moralistic assertion suggests that either one allows life to swallow them up or else one is a denigration of life for pushing back against the forces that will destroy you if you don't.
A great companion film to A History Of Violence, I think, is Michael Haneke's Funny Games. A film which also explores our social attraction to violence albeit from a different perspective.
Hell, John Wick is the culmination of this type of film. It cuts to the heart of what's required in order to exact a 'revenge fantasy'. Basically, a history of death and destruction, loss and regret, that gives the protagonist a perspective on the nature of violence. The 'Hollywood' expression of this genre would be Taken, imo.
@@BSpinoza210 none of those movies actually question the violence, its effects and origins. They tap into the feeling the audience gets from the events but there's absolutely no nuance as to the why it might be bad to murder dozens for the wrongdoings of one.
In West Philadelphia born and raised. Moves away and spends a couple of decades building up a good guy image. Then one act of violence brings it all down.
I always thought this was one of Cronedaddy's weaker films tbh. I never really rated it that high in lists of his best films but this analysis has got me looking at it differently now, thank you sir
I just subbed. LOL you threw me off at first man I thought you were serious and maybe I was about to get Rick rolled or something. Great job on this sir. 🙏
I've always seen this movie as a work of art. In my top 5 faves for sure. My number 1 is True Romance, which is a lot like this movie in this same direction.
I’ve just recently started to fully appreciate some of these great directors like Cronenburg and Kubrick. Crazy how I had seen a lot of these movies and missed out on soo much by not using my 🧠.
I love the movie and I am a great fan of Viggo Mortensen. After being Aragorn in LOTR, he managed to shed his life as a journeyman and bit-part actor. Mortensen managed to have a stellar career as a leading man, and he choose his roles wisely. However, this movie has it's flaws. The actor who plays Joey's son, is totally miscast and too old for that role! And for some strange reason it's never explored how the killing of Ed Harris' character has affected him. You are right that the movie is too short. And we never learn more about the consequences of the fact that at the end of the movie Joey had killed five people, while his son had shot one man. It should not be possible for Joey to resume his life as a peaceful family father. Btw, you made two mistakes: Joey didn’t murder the two gangsters who tried rob Joey's diner. It was self-defence because the robbers threatened to kill Joey's stuff members! And Joey wasn't in a witness protection program. He had managed to construct a new life for himself all on his own! The idea that he might be a protected witness was only suggested by the local sherif.
Sorry for focusing on a niggling point but Tom made it clear he is not in & has never been in the Witness Protection Program. He simply "found" an identity of a guy (whom he probably killed or bought his identity after his death) who simply did not need it anymore (because he was dead)!!! This probably was the start of Tom escaping the Philly mob & his brother wanting to kill him to rise up in the ranks and/or avoid being sacrificed for Tom's violent past misdeeds that included using barbed wire to carve the eye out of the Ed Harris' character???
I think the ending, with the final teary eyes and Joey once again inhabiting the Tom role showing honest deep regret is moving, but it absolutely can't lead to a happy life. I think the ending should've somewhat more stressed that no matter how many hoops you jump through to erase an ugly past, it will forever be there, hovering over your life. Joey/Tom was a criminal, a murderer, with a penchant for violent, excessive violence. That's why his brother calls him the crazy one. Sure, it's commendable he wants to turn his life around, but you don't do that by just leaving a complete mess and mayhem behind you...never paying the price for it and then starting a new somewhere else. You always, ALWAYS have to pay the price for your misdeeds before moving on, if you don't and you just move on, it's only a matter of time before it somehow, someway, somewhat catches up to you. Actually depending on your misdeed, but being a former gangster and murderer and probably a drug abuser, who lies to his wife and family about who he is and who then kills in cold blood 8 other people within days? (two in the diner, two in front of the house, four in Richie's house). And whose past leads to his son shooting someone dead on their lawn? Nah, you can learn to live with it, work somehow around it, but word will get out, people will know, it will affect his family and no it won't ever be just a nice rural life. That's the true final message of the movie - be wary of what you do in the present so you don't have a history that you need to push out and erase in order to be able to move on. Because that shit will always somehow catch up with you and you will never erase what you did entirely. Ever.
Interesting perspective but I don't agree. I was raised in a family that was lower than dysfunctional. I escaped a history of violence by marrying the correct woman. She's amazing. We have made a great life for ourselves because we chose God's way. My past was poverty, crime, and mental illness. The key is that you have to kill Joey daily and feed Tom. Most important, you also have to leave! They hate that. Theoretically, the next move would be to sell the house and move where no one knows about you. It is like winning the lottery. I live 3000 miles from my family and my past. If I would have stayed close, I would have been involved in some unspeakable events. The movie touches on this. Leave. Burn bridges with toxic people if you have to. You must be born again to escape. That's how I did it and I am the most prosperous in my family line who has ever lived. Through God I broke my family tree. No one cares what I did over 30 years ago. Yet, I could be wrong with social media. My daughters will be more successful than me. They are professionals with college degrees. I retired early and live in a location where no one knows me. A lot a nice wealthy people around me. It's the road taken by very few. Is it worth it? Yeah, Ritchie it is.
Don’t agree. It’s really hard to turn your life around but people do it. He didn’t kill the last ones in cold blood. Did you even watch it, for heavens sake? He was protecting his people, his life and then his family. The price he pays, he pays every day but he still gets up every morning and loves his family and works hard. People are always amazed at what their neighbours do so I don’t believe anyone would necessarily find out his earlier life, that was unlucky for him. Did he really lie to his wife though? He turned his life around, became a husband and father so why should he carry that earlier life into his new one? He became Tom and left Joey behind.
I think you apply a heuristic of justice here that is just simply not true. In real life we've seen truly awful people have it pretty fucking good, during and after death. We all know what Henry Kissinger did, yet he died from old age surrounded by his deeply successful and prosperous family. Tom protected himself through obscurity, Kissinger protected himself through politics. Both methods have risks for becoming weaknesses but I really don't think you can claim it's a rule of nature to get what's coming to you.
I'd say 10/10. I don't think genre movies get much better or more introspective even while keeping to form. I just don't see how this film gets a "B" and not an "A". I don't really want Cronenberg to exhaust every element, such as the son's behavior and everyone's reactions to it, etc., etc., ad nauseum, because he shows us enough. How do *you* feel about it? I don't want everything explained repeatedly. It would weigh the movie down. Nobody is resolved and that's the idea, well enough said in the ending, which was exquisitely painful.
Its interesting how all the comments that speak about the ‘betrayal’ he commits against his wife and family, but they also commit a betrayal against him by turning their backs and hearts against him. They don’t question his upbringing or why he comes from such violence, there are no questions about his ability to lead a blameless life for so long…… I find it strange and cold of them.
When they find out that the person they loved wasn't at all who they thought he was, they have to reevaluate what he means to them. We're with Tom the entire flim and are rooting for him, so we feel differently, but to find out you've been lied to your entire marriage? To have killed someone to save your father and discover your father wasn't who you thought he was? That look on his face when he took the shotgun from his son's hand made me think he might have been about to kill him. They're allowed to be cold and a bit distant---they're the ones adjusting to a new reality.
Excellent review always wonder how a person like yourself who is perceptive and intelligent has so little subscribers compared to so many knuckleheads that have so money…know you have excellent insight.
Its funny how I discovered this movie. There was this trailer for it on TV and the trailer had some really great music. On the search for what the music was called I ended up getting sidetracked and watching this movie, didn't think that much of it but I did enjoy watching it. Anyways I did find the music
13:37 If you're going to wax philosophically about Christianity in relation to this film, you should do a little research. Cain and Abel did not "kill each other" and violence was never cited in the Bible as the "thing that created sin in the world". Sin existed before the murder and was its cause, not its result.
I my opinion, that scene on the steps was the wife taking back her power from him. Maybe, she wanted a man to violate her completely as the alpha male...so she could later leave him feeling emasculated.
Well the problem with the analysis is the problem with the central question asked. Where is the line between our animal instincts and our civilized behavior. The mistake here is to assume that our animal instincts and behavior have evolved. Which is true. It has evolved over time due to selective forces. The mistake made analytically is to assume that our “ civilized behavior” didn’t evolve over time due to selective forces. Quite the contrary the multiple lines of evidence available clearly show that our “civilized behavior” has, in large part, evolved over time due to selective forces. Now if this correct, and their is a very large body of evidence indicating a high probability that it is. Then the answer to the central question becomes obvious. That is there is no line between our animal instincts and our civilized behavior. So if this is the central question of the movie then the movie is based on a false premise as the question itself is based on a false premise. So that just leaves the obvious answer. The human penchant for violence is within us all due to the nature of the laws of biology. There is no line separating our animal and our civilized behavior. Both behaviors have been intrinsically built into our behavior by selective forces.
When Tom was in the hospital bed being questioned, he said "I killed him in the desert". Sorry but no desert in Indiana or Pennsylvania. Another biblical terminology in the film. What "desert"? Good question right? 🌎🌍🌐
Perhaps it is like Jesus Christ sending away the devil in the desert. That is why the leading man is wearing a cross. He is like Christ forcing us to fight against the evil inside us. Though Cronnenberg doesn't usually make biblical referrences. Mostly darwinian.
America is a big country, with deserts, and domestic flights that will take you to them. Maybe he went to Vegas? Who knows? Just because he used to live in Philly and came to live in Indiana doesn't mean he didn't go anywhere else.
@@Skiamakhos Here's a movie insider secret? His name is Stahl. I know what it sounds like. Stall, "delay". Or Stall, as is the toilet > so there you get the reaction of the lady throwing up. I thought about what you said and maybe your right. If there was only a Frank Miller prequel.
@@Skiamakhos Crazy Joey could have been tripping on peyote in Death Valley to escape from the mob. Lol. For all we know. His own style of witness protection.
@@MrBigtime1986 I'm a spinster so you're asking the wrong weirdo. I just think what happens in divorce court shouldn't be used to justify domestic violence
![BOWKYLION - วิงวอน (ex-change) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/cLdnZWDaO-w/mqdefault.jpg)
At no point in the film is it implied Tom/Joey is in the witness protection program. He built his new life on his own.
yeah if i remember correctly its only something that the cop asks him about but we never see any evidence that points there - i think he wasnt a relocated witness he was part of the crime world and managed to escape it and go under the radar for many years
The sheriff ask him after the sheriff threatens the mob
I can hear DarkViperAU screaming
It took him 3 years to become Tom Stall…
15:00 About that scene at the lake. First, I'm so stoked you picked it out, I think it's one of the most symbolical ones in the movie! Second, Joey actually gets on his knees, arguably to wash the blood off, but for me it's a scene with strong biblical symbolism. As you mentioned, the killing of the older brother, and now this immersion in water to me refers to baptism, a transformation through ritual, which in this case is a violent and murderous one, and in the closing close-up of Mortensen conveys expertly the ambiguity of the efficacy of this ritual, and the doubtful prospects of a normal future for Tom with the family.
I would have to go as far as saying this movie is excellent. And Viggo was fantastic in it. A very well done movie. And the violence wasn’t too far fetched.
It's incorrect to say that Tom murders the two killers in the cafe. He was defending his staff and customers from potential harm; which is proven by the two's actions in the intro.
Although true “he manslaughtered them” doesn’t have the same ring lol
@@dopedreamz no he killed them. Theres a difference between murder and killing.
@@SealegsSam no sh*t..... did you read my comment? ALTHOUGH TRUE..... so thank you for pointing out what I started my comment with.
@@dopedreamz Actually he did because manslaughtered and killed don’t mean the same thing either.
@@dopedreamz
Self defence is a complete defence at law. It's not manslaughter. There's a big difference.
"How do you fuck that up?" Fantastic movie
This man definitely didn't fuck up his analysis of "A History of Violence," I'll say that! 😁👍
Really good analysis. Chronenberg is such a great director.
Couldn’t have said this better myself.
He's always in my top 3 directors with Kubrick and Hitchcock.
I've heard a few people say this film is nothing like Cronenberg's earlier work, but I disagree, I think this film perfectly describes what a Cronenberg film is! It's not sci-fi/horror, but that doesn't mean it's not a true Cronenberg film!
It is a shift of tone from his 80's and 90's stuff, but that said not surprising. He already displayed interest in more grounded psychological themes in 2002 with Spider. No surprise it was followed with History... and A Dangerous Method.
Personally, speaking as a huge Cronenberg fan, I think aHoV is his *best* film.
Your review and thoughts in general are very clear, precise and interesting. With this kind of work, your page is underrated in this case. Keep up the good work.
The movie storyline is a metaphor for how America, like Tom Stawell, convinces itself into the role of an innocent, law abiding member and leader of the world community, when in fact it has been, again like Tom, a perpetrator of great violence and damage to much of the world around it. Like Tom, America strives to show itself as a decent, law abiding world citizen, when in fact it has been the opposite in the eyes of many.
So wrong on so many levels.
Nice analysis. I particularly liked your superhero analogy--I've always thought that being a superhero would be horrible. All the responsibility, if you take a rest people die, you have to hide your identity to protect your loved ones--very analogous. And making violence real brings the horror of being a hero into focus. Good stuff. All the best.
Yeah and when his son says "you're a hero dad" you can see how uncomfortable he is with the title.
I'm really glad he brought up the shadow self because did anyone else notice the symbolism in the beginning of the movie when Sarah wakes from her nightmare about Shadow Monsters??? Alot of symbolism there.
I thought that part was a little too on the nose; good child actors are hard to come by and that little girl, while cute, wasn't one of them.
For me, there is only one layer in the title - Violence is the main character and movie will condense eons of Violence into this short story.
I was on the edge of my seat regarding this film. I'd say 10 out of 10. You must be a fan of the genre. And Ed Harris!? I also loved "Eastern Promises." To think, the same director and star in two excellent films back to back. I was really impressed.
I love eastern promises but this one didn't click for me like that one. I still like it though.
Very well done, friend. I remember taking a date to see this (our second date) as she was excited to see it; she most certainly did NOT understand the ending. Years later, I'm not still not sure if she ever got it...Just like Tom I suppose. I don't need closure; stories that provide a comfortable ending don't tend to stay with me after a viewing, I've noticed. Thanks for this.
I enjoyed this analysis a lot. It's a shame that this video doesn't get as much traction as the big ytbers but I hope you can continue to do more of this. I loved it very much and thank you very much for this
I know this is a two year old video but I gotta say you turned me around on this film. I like to consider myself a movie connoisseur but I always gave this a six out of ten too. I remember being mildly disappointed in this film. But your analysis has made me rethink my rating. I will be giving it a rewatch very soon and I am most definitely now a subscriber. Thanks
Fantastic acting in this film.
"Coffee!!!!!" I say that all the time mimicking the film. It's been years. (I do drink a lot of coffee.)
That and Mirror! From Batman 🤣
You can hide violence, build a life that does not contain violence. But you’ll always have the idea of breaking someone’s leg or choke slamming them into the ground. It’s self control.
I stopped living life that way a long, long time ago, and I still find myself constantly sizing people up around me and imagining what I would do in a situation. Maybe even like to do?
Being a human can be a strange thing.
@@Groovy_Bruce It is either that those people you are sizing up are intimidating or threatening to you or you are lacking in self worth, either physical or mental.
In any case it is a threat response. It is not natural to do it all the time and it will deplete you from the inside.
You should size people up only when violence is inevitable. Or else you should refrain from it. If you are doing it constantly then it is a sign of weakness.
P.S. I am not trying to say that you are weak or less than anybody, it is just psychology of fighting. You could be extremely strong physically but will still loose, if your mind is not trained. Therefore, loosing your mind, which is exactly what you are doing when you enter the Fight or Flight response constantly, will completely destroy your mind and make you incapable of fighting correctly.
Women have surprisingly violent natures also. This movie doesn't really explore that, but they can be just as vicious and deadly as men, but usually through backstabbing and subterfuge.
This is a perfect review! Literally perfect!
Indeed. Very well done.
Fantastic analysis and review of this still underrated film. 8/10, same as you gave "A History of Violence!" 👍
The typical discussion of "violence" speaks of it from a detached place, as though it is some foreign or alien invention imposed on us. The term "violence" is merely a description of a force of nature as common and real as rain.
Violence simply is.
How it it manifests is as interesting as discussing the various ways that rain manifests.
What's more perhaps more interesting is discussing how the consequences of violence are managed.
Like dealing with the consequences of a typhoon or a hurricane.
You conflate animalistic and violence as conjoined terms as though being an animal is only to be denigrated and that only animals engage in violence.
The struggle to simply exist is a violent process. Nothing living on this planet survives by laying down and allowing.
Even a sloth has to struggle against predation.
Your conflation and moralistic assertion suggests that either one allows life to swallow them up or else one is a denigration of life for pushing back against the forces that will destroy you if you don't.
A great companion film to A History Of Violence, I think, is Michael Haneke's Funny Games. A film which also explores our social attraction to violence albeit from a different perspective.
Hell, John Wick is the culmination of this type of film. It cuts to the heart of what's required in order to exact a 'revenge fantasy'. Basically, a history of death and destruction, loss and regret, that gives the protagonist a perspective on the nature of violence. The 'Hollywood' expression of this genre would be Taken, imo.
Excellent observation. I had almost forgotten about that movie because I was so traumatized when I watched it.
@@BSpinoza210 none of those movies actually question the violence, its effects and origins. They tap into the feeling the audience gets from the events but there's absolutely no nuance as to the why it might be bad to murder dozens for the wrongdoings of one.
In West Philadelphia born and raised. Moves away and spends a couple of decades building up a good guy image. Then one act of violence brings it all down.
I always thought this was one of Cronedaddy's weaker films tbh. I never really rated it that high in lists of his best films but this analysis has got me looking at it differently now, thank you sir
I think it's his best film. At least his most mature film.
One of my favorite movies and I don’t even know why. Like I know there are better films but for some reason this one always stuck with me.
Maria bello's finest role as far as I can see.
great review!
I just subbed. LOL you threw me off at first man I thought you were serious and maybe I was about to get Rick rolled or something. Great job on this sir. 🙏
Good analysis bro, please post more videos.
I've always seen this movie as a work of art. In my top 5 faves for sure. My number 1 is True Romance, which is a lot like this movie in this same direction.
That's an interesting parallel. I think True Romance is way more over the top and cheesy, but it's still a great movie.
When he tells his son to go in the house is masterful acting
Perfect analysis of this movie.
I’ve just recently started to fully appreciate some of these great directors like Cronenburg and Kubrick. Crazy how I had seen a lot of these movies and missed out on soo much by not using my 🧠.
I love the movie and I am a great fan of Viggo Mortensen. After being Aragorn in LOTR, he managed to shed his life as a journeyman and bit-part actor. Mortensen managed to have a stellar career as a leading man, and he choose his roles wisely. However, this movie has it's flaws. The actor who plays Joey's son, is totally miscast and too old for that role! And for some strange reason it's never explored how the killing of Ed Harris' character has affected him. You are right that the movie is too short. And we never learn more about the consequences of the fact that at the end of the movie Joey had killed five people, while his son had shot one man. It should not be possible for Joey to resume his life as a peaceful family father.
Btw, you made two mistakes: Joey didn’t murder the two gangsters who tried rob Joey's diner. It was self-defence because the robbers threatened to kill Joey's stuff members! And Joey wasn't in a witness protection program. He had managed to construct a new life for himself all on his own! The idea that he might be a protected witness was only suggested by the local sherif.
Loved the movie and the analysis, thank you for the upload
Dude you're gonna love Riders of Justice
Great piece and analysis
Sorry for focusing on a niggling point but Tom made it clear he is not in & has never been in the Witness Protection Program. He simply "found" an identity of a guy (whom he probably killed or bought his identity after his death) who simply did not need it anymore (because he was dead)!!! This probably was the start of Tom escaping the Philly mob & his brother wanting to kill him to rise up in the ranks and/or avoid being sacrificed for Tom's violent past misdeeds that included using barbed wire to carve the eye out of the Ed Harris' character???
Always enjoyed this film. :-)
Can somebody explain the opening scene with this movie, who is the 2 people that shoot the innkeeper
The real question is was he from west Philadelphia born and raised...
I really liked this film. Your analysis helped me better understand why
Well done on the analysis,Cronenberg really gets under your skin.
Too bad nothing was mentioned about the adpated screen play - it was nominated for an Academy Award.
Great analysis i always felt alone in thinking how great this movie is it might even be my favorite chronenberg movie
Have you seen the Dead Zone? It's a little dated, but it's a great mainstream Cronenberg movie.
Great video, subscribed!
I think the ending, with the final teary eyes and Joey once again inhabiting the Tom role showing honest deep regret is moving, but it absolutely can't lead to a happy life. I think the ending should've somewhat more stressed that no matter how many hoops you jump through to erase an ugly past, it will forever be there, hovering over your life.
Joey/Tom was a criminal, a murderer, with a penchant for violent, excessive violence. That's why his brother calls him the crazy one. Sure, it's commendable he wants to turn his life around, but you don't do that by just leaving a complete mess and mayhem behind you...never paying the price for it and then starting a new somewhere else. You always, ALWAYS have to pay the price for your misdeeds before moving on, if you don't and you just move on, it's only a matter of time before it somehow, someway, somewhat catches up to you.
Actually depending on your misdeed, but being a former gangster and murderer and probably a drug abuser, who lies to his wife and family about who he is and who then kills in cold blood 8 other people within days? (two in the diner, two in front of the house, four in Richie's house). And whose past leads to his son shooting someone dead on their lawn?
Nah, you can learn to live with it, work somehow around it, but word will get out, people will know, it will affect his family and no it won't ever be just a nice rural life. That's the true final message of the movie - be wary of what you do in the present so you don't have a history that you need to push out and erase in order to be able to move on. Because that shit will always somehow catch up with you and you will never erase what you did entirely. Ever.
Interesting perspective but I don't agree. I was raised in a family that was lower than dysfunctional. I escaped a history of violence by marrying the correct woman. She's amazing. We have made a great life for ourselves because we chose God's way. My past was poverty, crime, and mental illness. The key is that you have to kill Joey daily and feed Tom. Most important, you also have to leave! They hate that.
Theoretically, the next move would be to sell the house and move where no one knows about you. It is like winning the lottery. I live 3000 miles from my family and my past. If I would have stayed close, I would have been involved in some unspeakable events.
The movie touches on this. Leave. Burn bridges with toxic people if you have to. You must be born again to escape. That's how I did it and I am the most prosperous in my family line who has ever lived. Through God I broke my family tree. No one cares what I did over 30 years ago. Yet, I could be wrong with social media. My daughters will be more successful than me. They are professionals with college degrees. I retired early and live in a location where no one knows me. A lot a nice wealthy people around me. It's the road taken by very few. Is it worth it? Yeah, Ritchie it is.
Don’t agree. It’s really hard to turn your life around but people do it. He didn’t kill the last ones in cold blood. Did you even watch it, for heavens sake? He was protecting his people, his life and then his family. The price he pays, he pays every day but he still gets up every morning and loves his family and works hard. People are always amazed at what their neighbours do so I don’t believe anyone would necessarily find out his earlier life, that was unlucky for him.
Did he really lie to his wife though? He turned his life around, became a husband and father so why should he carry that earlier life into his new one? He became Tom and left Joey behind.
I think you apply a heuristic of justice here that is just simply not true. In real life we've seen truly awful people have it pretty fucking good, during and after death. We all know what Henry Kissinger did, yet he died from old age surrounded by his deeply successful and prosperous family. Tom protected himself through obscurity, Kissinger protected himself through politics. Both methods have risks for becoming weaknesses but I really don't think you can claim it's a rule of nature to get what's coming to you.
I'd say 10/10. I don't think genre movies get much better or more introspective even while keeping to form. I just don't see how this film gets a "B" and not an "A".
I don't really want Cronenberg to exhaust every element, such as the son's behavior and everyone's reactions to it, etc., etc., ad nauseum, because he shows us enough. How do *you* feel about it? I don't want everything explained repeatedly. It would weigh the movie down.
Nobody is resolved and that's the idea, well enough said in the ending, which was exquisitely painful.
Its interesting how all the comments that speak about the ‘betrayal’ he commits against his wife and family, but they also commit a betrayal against him by turning their backs and hearts against him. They don’t question his upbringing or why he comes from such violence, there are no questions about his ability to lead a blameless life for so long…… I find it strange and cold of them.
When they find out that the person they loved wasn't at all who they thought he was, they have to reevaluate what he means to them. We're with Tom the entire flim and are rooting for him, so we feel differently, but to find out you've been lied to your entire marriage? To have killed someone to save your father and discover your father wasn't who you thought he was? That look on his face when he took the shotgun from his son's hand made me think he might have been about to kill him. They're allowed to be cold and a bit distant---they're the ones adjusting to a new reality.
I thought at the end the family would give him up to the police.
@@improvgm8663 couldn't have said it any better.
This movie was so underrated
I know.
The Majority of the themes covered in this could be used as a movie that would be a remake on Audie Murphy's Life!
As to other films with this theme; Ingmar Bergman 's Virgin Spring but not the remake, Last House on the Left.
Loved the analysis. My two cents would be to edit your audio to go a wee bit faster. 10 percent maybe? 1.1x. Subbed. Excellent work overall.
Excellent review always wonder how a person like yourself who is perceptive and intelligent has so little subscribers compared to so many knuckleheads that have so money…know you have excellent insight.
Crash, another film by Cronemburg is a very strange film about bear death experiences and sex.
Well, through DNA he'd be found and jailed.
They got a sample from Jill Levy.
good review mane
I enjoyed this video a lot.
I don’t believe Tom is in witness protection, I would say he most likely faked his own death, then went into hiding
Its funny how I discovered this movie.
There was this trailer for it on TV and the trailer had some really great music. On the search for what the music was called I ended up getting sidetracked and watching this movie, didn't think that much of it but I did enjoy watching it.
Anyways I did find the music
What’s the music/song on the trailer called?
@@michaelxu7951 röyksopp, robyn - do it again
@@TheBenjaman Nice, thanks
A good companion film to watch with Peckinpah's Straw Dogs.
Which was more disturbing to me for some reason. That raaaapee scene was brutal.
13:37 If you're going to wax philosophically about Christianity in relation to this film, you should do a little research. Cain and Abel did not "kill each other" and violence was never cited in the Bible as the "thing that created sin in the world". Sin existed before the murder and was its cause, not its result.
I my opinion, that scene on the steps was the wife taking back her power from him. Maybe, she wanted a man to violate her completely as the alpha male...so she could later leave him feeling emasculated.
Uh, no. That's a dumb analysis
I work an american corporate job, I wear a mask 40 hours a week.
PS also thought the film should have been longer.
Whos here for knowing for LEO ?
It was terrible. No one investigated 3 guys getting killed in someone’s front yard? “Are you Joey?” “No”. “Okay, nothing to see here”
40 days 40 nights.
I know where you live!
Well the problem with the analysis is the problem with the central question asked.
Where is the line between our animal instincts and our civilized behavior. The mistake here is to assume that our animal instincts and behavior have evolved. Which is true. It has evolved over time due to selective forces.
The mistake made analytically is to assume that our “ civilized behavior” didn’t evolve over time due to selective forces.
Quite the contrary the multiple lines of evidence available clearly show that our “civilized behavior” has, in large part, evolved over time due to selective forces.
Now if this correct, and their is a very large body of evidence indicating a high probability that it is. Then the answer to the central question becomes obvious. That is there is no line between our animal instincts and our civilized behavior.
So if this is the central question of the movie then the movie is based on a false premise as the question itself is based on a false premise.
So that just leaves the obvious answer. The human penchant for violence is within us all due to the nature of the laws of biology. There is no line separating our animal and our civilized behavior. Both behaviors have been intrinsically built into our behavior by selective forces.
Well said
This film fucked my wife up!
A lot of hot-air.
He is NOT in witness protection. Did you even watch the movie?
🔔🔚
This film fucked me up!
When Tom was in the hospital bed being questioned, he said "I killed him in the desert". Sorry but no desert in Indiana or Pennsylvania. Another biblical terminology in the film. What "desert"? Good question right? 🌎🌍🌐
Perhaps it is like Jesus Christ sending away the devil in the desert. That is why the leading man is wearing a cross. He is like Christ forcing us to fight against the evil inside us. Though Cronnenberg doesn't usually make biblical referrences. Mostly darwinian.
America is a big country, with deserts, and domestic flights that will take you to them. Maybe he went to Vegas? Who knows? Just because he used to live in Philly and came to live in Indiana doesn't mean he didn't go anywhere else.
@@Skiamakhos Here's a movie insider secret? His name is Stahl. I know what it sounds like. Stall, "delay". Or Stall, as is the toilet > so there you get the reaction of the lady throwing up. I thought about what you said and maybe your right. If there was only a Frank Miller prequel.
@@Skiamakhos Crazy Joey could have been tripping on peyote in Death Valley to escape from the mob. Lol. For all we know. His own style of witness protection.
God that has to be so hard to live a lifetime of lies, then just accepting by your new family.
Are women doomed to male violence ? Go through divorce court and see if you think the same way after that
found the mgtow
you been divorced
@@MrBigtime1986 nope
opinions and besides what's the benefit of marriage anyway ?
@@MrBigtime1986 I'm a spinster so you're asking the wrong weirdo. I just think what happens in divorce court shouldn't be used to justify domestic violence
This movie was boring
Horrible acting
This movie is a pile of garbage