Comments on: A History of Violence

By: MKPman_inPDX

MKPman_inPDX — Sun, 11 Dec 2011 05:40:00 +0000

I think the movie did a terrible job of actually portraying any actual
conflict in Viggo’s character. He is a virtual god figure, more oedipal
child than actual human construct; how else does he blaze through all
of his ‘demons’ unscathed. I can see why you might want to see this
movie from a perspective of owning one’s shadow. It is vital to mature
masculinity. I think that this movie, judged in and of itself, does a
flat, boring portrayal of a topic that has much vitality in it. Sorry
guys, I did not find it good or convincing.

By: Liana

Liana — Mon, 01 Nov 2010 21:32:42 +0000

I thought this film was an excellent example of 1st stage man, 2nd stage man although there were only glimpes of 3rd stage man at the end of the film while he is sitting at the dinner table with his family as he returns home integrated, raw and in truth.

I would have liked more dialogue at the end of the film – a deeper revealing of him but i also know the film was perfect with no words just seeing each other.

I also appreciated the confusing sex-scene on the staircase – where they were both attracted to the darkness and yet ashamed and confused by the interaction of the end of it.

I would love to find out why they had the little girl set the dinner table – was it highlighting naive or innocence. Also what to do with the teenage son – who had been part used as part of the integration process – how does he end up – I am pretty sure not as a deaf mute.

How do you go on from here? I guess I am looking for something that may not exist.

By: Eivind

Eivind — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 19:31:02 +0000

Totally, Robin. It is probably the film with the clearest exposition on the dark side of masculinity of all the movies featured on the site so far.

I feel called to watch it again.

By: Robin

Robin — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 17:41:43 +0000

This film is a very good statement on the dark side of masculinity