I grew up in an extremely violent home and, as such, became an extremely violent young man. When I saw this film as a teen, it was something in the degradation of their near perfect family that gave me pause in my conviction to seek violence out for the first time. It took years, but this film was the catalyst to my understanding that violence is a tool that any self respecting human only uses in self defense or sport. As an American, though, this film speaks to me in different ways. The glorification, the almost revered way that violence is portrayed by our country seems more like a curse than anything else.
I love how Cronenberg goes over the same themes again and again but through different lenses to better get his view across to different people. Not all of his movies resonate with me but I really admire his dedication to his brand of existentialism and individuaism, what it means to be in control or controlled, and revisiting it from so many angles and perspectives. Really looking forward to seeing the shrouds.
This was a thoughtful, well-researched analysis. And I appreciate you not half-assing the footage - you full-assed it to perfection. Well done. Subscribed.
I didn't gel with this film when I first saw it. I noticed how the themes of violence were echoed throughout the movie but didn't pick up on the American iconography. Love these more regular uploads, Sam. Have loved your videos ever since the analysis of Drive.
Cronenberg appeals to intellectuals and cinephiles. This movie was his most mainstream/accessible but it is equally interesting and well executed as his best work (great cast!) He should be very proud for busting out of his niche and making a great film. Like David Lynch? John Carpenter is equally genius, and he gets crapped on if he makes anything not horror related.
Absoluuuutley thankyou - a typo there that will bug me forever. Just rewatched Blue Velvet recently. Gotta have Jeffrey Beaumont before we can have Dale Cooper
I consider myself to be in the minority among Cronenberg fans in my preference for his 00’s period of cerebral crime films that meditate on violence and the impact of violence. I love his body horror stuff too, but I think Cronenberg’s work benefits greatly from placing his obsessions in a different vehicle and within the language of another genre. A History of Violence is probably my favorite film of his, but I think he and I would disagree with where it’s true themes lie. I think it’s perfectly fine for a Canadian to have the cynical view of American brutality and the commonalities of good and bad that blur moral lines and all that and as a young man I agreed with him. 20 years later that is no longer the film I see. As I’ve matured and experienced more of the world I see a film that presents the necessity of violent men. A culture/community can have great ideas and noble goals but they don’t mean anything when rivals threaten doom outside the gates. The type of masculinity that today gets labeled as “toxic” is of extreme value to any society that wishes to preserve itself. Since Canada has largely outsourced much of its necessity for violence to its southern neighbor it follows that this worldview seems foreign or possibly obscene, but this viewpoint doesn’t change reality. These men may not make for great husbands or even fathers, but they have other utility and I think all robust societies have learned how to make space for such men. The ones who haven’t don’t exist anymore.
Really interesting take, and backed up by the film. Tom's use of violence in the film (except for when he slaps his son) is utilitarian - out of protection of himself, his family and others. Easy enough to extrapolate. Thanks for sharing
@@samcooneyrambles I think one of the duties of the sacred masculine is the capacity for great violence. A violence that is protective, defensive and deterrent against aggressions (initiation of violence). And I think Tom’s violence (mostly) qualities. Of course like all things this sacred power can become corrupted and that’s exactly the kind of corruption Tom’s antagonists wield. These men use violence to advance themselves at the expense of others. They take what rightfully belongs to others and will use violence or the threat thereof to enforce their illegitimate claims to other people’s property/labor. This is the corrupted masculine, a masculinity Tom/Joey was once governed by and has since tried to separate from and redeem himself of.
Even though they're both comic-based, you can't compare them to superhero movies! They're completely different subject matters. I mean, would you compare "Ghost World" and "American Splendor" to "Spider-Man"?
@@salarzx62090 I Don't Like Superhero Movies and I have Batman Fatigue ever since 2012 I just want to watch non comic book movies that's what I enjoy more and I watched hated stuff like Arrow, The Flash, Supergirl, Legends Of Tomorrow and Black Lightning I'm confessing to that
I hear you, Jamal bl7yh. He is comparing it based on its treatment of reluctant violence and vigilantism. Good people who are pushed into conflict and destruction of enemies. Road to Perdition and HoV both treat the subject in a much more thoughtful/mature manner than silly Bat Man movies.
Even though I hate this movie with an intense passion and genuinely believe it's garbage, I really appreciate the thought and effort out into this video. Well made and put together
I thought this was Cronenberg’s “sell-out” piece. It was okay I guess. I’ve always wanted to read the original comic book that was the source material and inspiration for “A History of Violence”.
I was going to mention Irreversible before it was shown. That movie…my goodness. It smacks you in the face with brutal reality of SA. Vengeance doesn’t fix it, there is no redemption…it’s irreversible. To skim over its impact to set up motivation is a sickness in action cinema. The backwards chronology I believe is to ensure that events cannot possibly be seen as redemptive.
Full quote for context: “I remember when Quentin Tarantino’s Pulp Fiction came out, and I was sitting in a matinee filled with young people,” Haneke once noted. “The famous scene of a boy’s head being blown off caused a huge commotion in the theater. They thought it was great and they almost died laughing. I was upset because I think it’s irresponsible.”
@@maxrocketanskysome people feel strongly about the glorification and normalisation of violence. As an overly gory director who definitely revels in violence more than contemplates it, I could definitely see why someone would come to that conclusion for Tarantino. Not knocking him as I enjoy his films a lot but I think there is sense to saying he uses violence irresponsibly. I mean his movies are very Americana, and irresponsible violence is quite an American thing in the first place. Once again I just don't think it's a hard conclusion to reach
I 've never heard so much horse crap about a movie being compared to the bible in my life. Fact: Saul became Paul and took up the minister of Stephen, the Christian he killed. A History of Violence is just about a man who must stop running from his violent past and deal with it.
I grew up in an extremely violent home and, as such, became an extremely violent young man. When I saw this film as a teen, it was something in the degradation of their near perfect family that gave me pause in my conviction to seek violence out for the first time. It took years, but this film was the catalyst to my understanding that violence is a tool that any self respecting human only uses in self defense or sport. As an American, though, this film speaks to me in different ways. The glorification, the almost revered way that violence is portrayed by our country seems more like a curse than anything else.
A profound commentary.
I love how Cronenberg goes over the same themes again and again but through different lenses to better get his view across to different people. Not all of his movies resonate with me but I really admire his dedication to his brand of existentialism and individuaism, what it means to be in control or controlled, and revisiting it from so many angles and perspectives.
Really looking forward to seeing the shrouds.
This was a thoughtful, well-researched analysis. And I appreciate you not half-assing the footage - you full-assed it to perfection. Well done. Subscribed.
I didn't gel with this film when I first saw it. I noticed how the themes of violence were echoed throughout the movie but didn't pick up on the American iconography. Love these more regular uploads, Sam. Have loved your videos ever since the analysis of Drive.
Ahhhh much appreciated! Will do my best to keep em coming
This was REALLY well done.
Loved the movie, didn't notice who the director was until now. Great video, thanks for the upload.
It does not have a lot of Cronenberg trademarks.
Class film and a class take on it once again Cooney another class piece of work x x x
Cronenberg appeals to intellectuals and cinephiles. This movie was his most mainstream/accessible but it is equally interesting and well executed as his best work (great cast!) He should be very proud for busting out of his niche and making a great film. Like David Lynch? John Carpenter is equally genius, and he gets crapped on if he makes anything not horror related.
“How do you mess that up!”
“Joeyyyyyyyy”
Great essay, thoroughly enjoyed
❤
Great video
There are somethings, if you do them, that's who you are forever. You may never do them again, but it doesn't matter. It's who you are.
Great little deconstruction, though it should be noted that Blue Velvet came out in 1986 rather than 1997
Absoluuuutley thankyou - a typo there that will bug me forever. Just rewatched Blue Velvet recently. Gotta have Jeffrey Beaumont before we can have Dale Cooper
It is better to be a warrior in a garden than a gardener in a war. Chinese proverbs
I consider myself to be in the minority among Cronenberg fans in my preference for his 00’s period of cerebral crime films that meditate on violence and the impact of violence. I love his body horror stuff too, but I think Cronenberg’s work benefits greatly from placing his obsessions in a different vehicle and within the language of another genre.
A History of Violence is probably my favorite film of his, but I think he and I would disagree with where it’s true themes lie. I think it’s perfectly fine for a Canadian to have the cynical view of American brutality and the commonalities of good and bad that blur moral lines and all that and as a young man I agreed with him. 20 years later that is no longer the film I see. As I’ve matured and experienced more of the world I see a film that presents the necessity of violent men. A culture/community can have great ideas and noble goals but they don’t mean anything when rivals threaten doom outside the gates. The type of masculinity that today gets labeled as “toxic” is of extreme value to any society that wishes to preserve itself. Since Canada has largely outsourced much of its necessity for violence to its southern neighbor it follows that this worldview seems foreign or possibly obscene, but this viewpoint doesn’t change reality. These men may not make for great husbands or even fathers, but they have other utility and I think all robust societies have learned how to make space for such men. The ones who haven’t don’t exist anymore.
Really interesting take, and backed up by the film. Tom's use of violence in the film (except for when he slaps his son) is utilitarian - out of protection of himself, his family and others. Easy enough to extrapolate. Thanks for sharing
@@samcooneyrambles I think one of the duties of the sacred masculine is the capacity for great violence. A violence that is protective, defensive and deterrent against aggressions (initiation of violence). And I think Tom’s violence (mostly) qualities. Of course like all things this sacred power can become corrupted and that’s exactly the kind of corruption Tom’s antagonists wield. These men use violence to advance themselves at the expense of others. They take what rightfully belongs to others and will use violence or the threat thereof to enforce their illegitimate claims to other people’s property/labor. This is the corrupted masculine, a masculinity Tom/Joey was once governed by and has since tried to separate from and redeem himself of.
Still Better Than The Dark Knight Trilogy At least In my opinion a matter of Fact so Is Road To Perdition
Even though they're both comic-based, you can't compare them to superhero movies! They're completely different subject matters. I mean, would you compare "Ghost World" and "American Splendor" to "Spider-Man"?
Um....no..not better than the Dark Knight Trilogy. The weakest movie in that trilogy wipes the floor with this overrated pretentious pile of garbage
@@salarzx62090 I Don't Like Superhero Movies and I have Batman Fatigue ever since 2012 I just want to watch non comic book movies that's what I enjoy more and I watched hated stuff like Arrow, The Flash, Supergirl, Legends Of Tomorrow and Black Lightning I'm confessing to that
I hear you, Jamal bl7yh. He is comparing it based on its treatment of reluctant violence and vigilantism.
Good people who are pushed into conflict and destruction of enemies. Road to Perdition and HoV both treat the subject in a much more thoughtful/mature manner than silly Bat Man movies.
Even though I hate this movie with an intense passion and genuinely believe it's garbage, I really appreciate the thought and effort out into this video. Well made and put together
Have you seen Cronenberg’s “Spider”?
@@geinikan1kan I have not. Why?
@@salarzx62090 it’s a very different film from “A History.”
I thought this was Cronenberg’s “sell-out” piece. It was okay I guess. I’ve always wanted to read the original comic book that was the source material and inspiration for “A History of Violence”.
The movie is honestly better IMO
@@MichaelWaisJr The graphic novel is better
@@davidmorris8511 IMO the movie is a pile of dog crap. The graphic novel isn't good but it's way better than this dumpster fire of a movie
@@salarzx62090easy there trash boy
I've never seen a bigger hater@@salarzx62090
I was going to mention Irreversible before it was shown. That movie…my goodness. It smacks you in the face with brutal reality of SA. Vengeance doesn’t fix it, there is no redemption…it’s irreversible. To skim over its impact to set up motivation is a sickness in action cinema. The backwards chronology I believe is to ensure that events cannot possibly be seen as redemptive.
Well both movies depict SA so fitting
I’d like to see Marvel try and do a movie like this. DC rules.
that took me a minute 😉
Using violence irresponsibly? What does that even mean?
Full quote for context: “I remember when Quentin Tarantino’s Pulp Fiction came out, and I was sitting in a matinee filled with young people,” Haneke once noted. “The famous scene of a boy’s head being blown off caused a huge commotion in the theater. They thought it was great and they almost died laughing. I was upset because I think it’s irresponsible.”
@@samcooneyrambles that doesn't make any sense lol
@@maxrocketanskysome people feel strongly about the glorification and normalisation of violence. As an overly gory director who definitely revels in violence more than contemplates it, I could definitely see why someone would come to that conclusion for Tarantino. Not knocking him as I enjoy his films a lot but I think there is sense to saying he uses violence irresponsibly. I mean his movies are very Americana, and irresponsible violence is quite an American thing in the first place. Once again I just don't think it's a hard conclusion to reach
@@ktk44man it's definitely not an "American thing" but ok
Canadians hunted and ate the natives.
I 've never heard so much horse crap about a movie being compared to the bible in my life. Fact: Saul became Paul and took up the minister of Stephen, the Christian he killed. A History of Violence is just about a man who must stop running from his violent past and deal with it.