What can I say about David Cronenberg’s latest work that hasn’t already been said by film critics everywhere? My answer to that has to be: not much. A History of Violence will remind people that David Cronenberg is one of the more underappreciated film directors of the last 30 years. This film also solidifies Cronenberg as one of his generation’s genius filmmakers on the same level as Scorsese, Coppola, Spielberg and Lumet. Using a loose-adaptation (yet echoing enough of the graphic novel’s themes) of the John Wagner and Vince Locke graphic novel of the same name, Cronenberg creates a multi-layered film dissertation about the nature of violence. I will pause for a moment and say that the film also happens to deliver as a taut, gripping thriller of recent memory. A thriller that looks to ape the action-films of blockbusters past, but Cronenberg’s skill as a director manages to keep the film above it’s B-movie aspirations.

David Cronenberg is more well-known as the creator of eccentric and unusual fare with legions of fans and admirers in the horror community. David Cronenberg may have his most mainstream and accessible film to date since his remake of The Fly during the mid-1980’s with this adaptation. In A History of Violence Cronenberg’s existentialist beliefs continue to show as he probes through the dark and shadowy corners of human behavior and instinct. He posits a question of whether people as a whole — no matter how saintly, well-balanced, and civilized — secretly revels in the violence they see around them even as they denounce, show discomfort and unease when inundated by it. Some have seen this film as something of a historical commentary of American history and how the nation itself has been shaped by its acceptance (some would go so far as to say embracing it) of violence and its many repercussions. I would say that those people are not far off the mark, but to compartmentalize Cronenberg’s film to such a narrow focus is not fair to the film. Cronenberg deftly shows the brutality of violence and how its effect can be far-reaching and intimite at the same time.

As his past films dealt with the horror of the body politic (Shivers, Crash, The Brood, The Fly) and the nature of reality and existence (Videodrome, Dead Ringers, Naked Lunch, Spider, eXistenZ) Cronenberg continues these themes with this film. Despite the gore and viscera being small in comparison to his past works, History still shows the carnage and horror that violent acts can perform on the frail human body. The film also points out that people as a whole deceive themselves of the true world around them in order to hold onto the ideal and the quaint. This is really put forward by the dynamic interaction between the character of Tom Stall (Viggo Mortensen) and his wife Edie (Maria Bello) from beginning to end. It is a testament to the excellent performances by both these actors that the audience truly believe and care for their characters on-screen. I would have to say that this is some of Viggo Mortensen and Maria Bello’s best work. The chemistry between these two performers is genuine, searing and very intimate. The very last can be seen in graphic detail in the two scenes of sex between the characters. One in the beginning is naughtily playful and shows how much in love the two characters still are and the second being more brutal and primal as the hidden layers of each character is slowly peeled away to show whats been hidden all along.

The two characters of Carl Fogarty (played with sublime menace by Ed Harris) and Richie Cusack (William Hurt in a scene-chewing performance) play the opposite end of the film’s character-driven dynamic. Where Tom and Edie live what we see unfold as a life full of secrets and hidden skeletons beneath the Norman Rockwell facade, Fogarty and Cusack are comfortable in their chosen life. It is a life steeped in violence past, present and future but it is one they’ve embraced instead of hiding and trying to deny its allure. While Mortensen and Bello were great in their roles I must say that both Harris and Hurt shine in their roles. It was very clear to all that both actors were relishing their chosen roles. This was quite evident with William Hurt’s role as crime boss Richie Cusack. While his screen-time was brief hurt made use of every second to dominate the screen right up to the very end. It was not too much of a surprise that Hurt got nominated for Best Supporting Actor in 2006. A nomination despite a role and screen-time which lasted a mere 8 minutes.

For an art-film masquerading as an action-thriller, A History of Violence is very deliberate in setting up each violent outburst. There’s an underlying dread that permeates through each set-up. We know that something is about to happen, but the film doesn’t rush into it and gradually builds-up until something has to break. The violence is not your stereotypical action sequence that looks staged, but comes and goes quickly with the brutality and lethality of reality. In fact, the violence has the feel of being very intimate. Everything is up close and personal. Nothing is done from a distance with each strike and violent act painful to see, yet in all instances each scene also gets a rousing response from the audience. This is particularly evident in a scene concerning Tom Stall’s teenage son dealing with a particular high school bully in brutal fashion. Everyone in this film is touched by violence in some way or another. From the very young to the very old. The final scene at the dinner table is both haunting and familiar. With all that has been going on through Tom’s life and that of his family there’s a sense of acceptance of the violent genie that was unleashed in the beginning and one of “life must go on” mentality.

I must say that A History of Violence has to be one of the best films I’ve seen since I’ve been watching them. For a film that is really just a revenge-thriller similar to Chan-Wook Park’s Oldboy, Cronenberg’s latest has so many layers and depth to it that anyone who sees it are going to be tempted to talk about its themes and subtext long after the film has done it’s fade to black. Where Oldboy is like a hard kick in the gut then a devastation stomp on the neck, A History of Violence is more insidious, intimate and subversive — like a sharp papercut just beneath the fingernail that lingers and tells one that its going to be there for awhile and there to stay. Some may end up not liking the film due to its deliberate nature or not having enough people dying in elaborately staged action sequences, but that will only show exactly what Cronenberg has been trying to show. That people nowadays have been so inured and desensitized by violence that we’ve come to accept it as entertainment and actually have come to yearn and need it like a drug-addict looking for their next hit. For the first time in a decade I have no choice but to give this film a perfect score. I will definitely say that David Cronenberg is back and has put down a heavy gauntlet for the rest of Hollywood’s elite filmmakers to come one-up his work if they have the courage and skills to do so.