Clearly this is a polarizing film. And clearly there are plenty on both end of the opinion spectrum who are guilty of being obnoxious and needlessly inflammatory.
I definitely feel that this is a subtly brilliant work. Cronenberg is an eccentric, intellectual talent who likes to challenge his audience. Many moviegoers resent being challenged, finding it non-entertaining, even anti-entertainment. Call it elitism if you like, but savvier viewers are more likely to understand and enjoy this picture. I'm not one of those snobs who feels that if people only understood a smart film then they'd naturally enjoy it. However, one cannot help but note that those more likely to understand it are more likely to enjoy it, and that those who hate it make it abundantly clear in voicing their opinions that they didn't get the film at all. (And their atrocious spelling and egregious grammar don't help either.) Perhaps if the film's detractors would drop their defenses and do a little reading on it, they'd open their minds enough to at least appreciate if not outright enjoy this film more. Rotten Tomatoes is a great link (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/history_of_violence/), and the Chicago Reader's response seems most salient to me, to wit: "Cronenberg isn't engaging in parody or irony. Nor is he nihilistically pandering to our worst impulses: the film-making is too measured and too intelligent. He implicitly respects us and our responses, even when those responses are silly or disturbing." Hear, hear! Cronenberg is masterful enough to embrace ambiguity and make us feel conflicting emotions simultaneously. He's entered Fellini territory in that regard (though, of course, he's stylistically worlds away from the Maestro). I'm sorry, but those who charge him with amateurism are indeed "not getting it". This entire film is in line with the third act of Spike Jonze's ADAPTATION--ostensibly straightforward storytelling thoroughly bolstered by sardonic self-examination. Committed text and subversive subtext working with each other by counterintuitively working against each other to synergistically create a dimensional portrait of America's attitude toward violence.
His composition, lighting, lensing, pacing and editing are evidence of a truly self-trusting filmmaker at work: each uneasy--almost queasy--image (especially closeups) of quotidian bucolicism is positively pregnant with dreadful possibility, such that it forces the audience along with the characters to question fundamental assumptions about day-to-day living. What is real? What can one rely on? These queries suffuse Cronenberg's signaturist style.
Some middle-brows mistakenly think that such filmmakers as he are snidely asking, "Can you keep up?" when in fact he (and they) are enthusiastically proclaiming, "You can keep up! Come along! Try!"
I definitely feel that this is a subtly brilliant work. Cronenberg is an eccentric, intellectual talent who likes to challenge his audience. Many moviegoers resent being challenged, finding it non-entertaining, even anti-entertainment. Call it elitism if you like, but savvier viewers are more likely to understand and enjoy this picture. I'm not one of those snobs who feels that if people only understood a smart film then they'd naturally enjoy it. However, one cannot help but note that those more likely to understand it are more likely to enjoy it, and that those who hate it make it abundantly clear in voicing their opinions that they didn't get the film at all. (And their atrocious spelling and egregious grammar don't help either.) Perhaps if the film's detractors would drop their defenses and do a little reading on it, they'd open their minds enough to at least appreciate if not outright enjoy this film more. Rotten Tomatoes is a great link (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/history_of_violence/), and the Chicago Reader's response seems most salient to me, to wit: "Cronenberg isn't engaging in parody or irony. Nor is he nihilistically pandering to our worst impulses: the film-making is too measured and too intelligent. He implicitly respects us and our responses, even when those responses are silly or disturbing." Hear, hear! Cronenberg is masterful enough to embrace ambiguity and make us feel conflicting emotions simultaneously. He's entered Fellini territory in that regard (though, of course, he's stylistically worlds away from the Maestro). I'm sorry, but those who charge him with amateurism are indeed "not getting it". This entire film is in line with the third act of Spike Jonze's ADAPTATION--ostensibly straightforward storytelling thoroughly bolstered by sardonic self-examination. Committed text and subversive subtext working with each other by counterintuitively working against each other to synergistically create a dimensional portrait of America's attitude toward violence.
His composition, lighting, lensing, pacing and editing are evidence of a truly self-trusting filmmaker at work: each uneasy--almost queasy--image (especially closeups) of quotidian bucolicism is positively pregnant with dreadful possibility, such that it forces the audience along with the characters to question fundamental assumptions about day-to-day living. What is real? What can one rely on? These queries suffuse Cronenberg's signaturist style.
Some middle-brows mistakenly think that such filmmakers as he are snidely asking, "Can you keep up?" when in fact he (and they) are enthusiastically proclaiming, "You can keep up! Come along! Try!"
Tell Your Friends