I recently drove with my EW (Enduring Wife) to see "A History of Violence." Granted, we were supposed to pay $9.75/ticket, but my lovely EW had complained about the crappy sound/picture quality of our previous experience that we had free passes, yay!
Anyway, that is besides the point. I wanted to write a bit about the message of this film and how I see it interacting with some contemporary issues in the Fundagelical church.
The film is pretty basic. We have small-town, Indiana diner owner who is forced to take action during a robbery. Surprise, surprise...he is super handy with weapons and is soon visited by a Philly tough who thinks he is some hit-man/thug who disappeared years ago. The film centers primarily on the reaction of his family to this accusation and the decision that he must make.
The plot itself is not a super huge issue, but i think that the debate that it engages with is incredibly fascinating. What is identity? Are we a set of performed roles, as is indicated by many PoMo and Post-PoMo theorists? Or, is there an innate identity chosen by God/Nature/the Universe which we can choose to adopt or resist? Or, yet another option, we might be an accumulation of experiences that some how "add up" to us, as some Freudians/Psychoanalytic scholars might perceive?
I am amazed at how a relatively simple film can evoke such strong debates about issues that usually reside only in philosophical or theoretical conversations. Many people have written about the dumbing-down of Hollywood and the increase in stupidity and violence (Michael Medved is my personal nemesis), but it seems that many cannot look through the graphics and see the essential questions that reside inside of many of these narratives.
The most electrifying aspect of films like "A History of Violence" and the ways they address these concerns is that rarely do they come out and present THE definitive answer to these complex questions. One can look at films like "Blade Runner" and its question of humanity and technology or "Memento" and questions of memory and identity. Not only are these thrilling narratives that engage on a visceral, experiential level, but they also can allow for a public realm for those who engage in non-academic inquiries into the nature of their world.
Sometimes this debate and engagement is refused. For example, in our viewing of "A History of Violence," audience members down the row from us were very uncomfortable with the openendedness of the narrative and with a striking rape/abuse/lovemaking scene between Bello and Mortensen. They laughed at inappropriate times and complained loudly over the credits that this was, "The Worst Movie They Had Ever Seen."
I don't want to say that people are not entitled to their opinion, but this reaction shows that a problem with Hollywood is not that it promotes the wrong values or the films are too stupid or too difficult for people to understand. Even "stupid" and "offensive" films can challenge our perceptions. It is that they are unwilling or unable to engage in the dialogue with the film.
Now is this the fault of the film? Maybe/maybe not. It is difficult to approach the dramatic scene between Mortensen and Bello on the stairs and not feel something. The question is"What do we do with that feeling?" Also, "Is discomfort something we accept as 'entertaining?'"
We have been taught that being happy involves having no pain. My pastor once said how excited he was that he could look forward to going to Heaven where we would no longer get tired when he played basketball. I can understand the underlying feeling, but where does the joy caused by the testing of the mind and body that God has given us?
This is not the way that most audience members would look at thing, but the sentiment is important. Why are we so happy when we can "tune out"? My students constantly tell me that I am crazy because I try to force them to think. "Why do I need to think like that? Can't you just tell me what i should write my paper about?"
The same practice goes on in film. We have become accustomed to being told what to enjoy. We have soundtracks, genres, actors, and visual cues that all tell us what to think when. Those challenging Hollywood or "The Media" should be taking up arms against the way that stories are told and accepted, not the message of these institutions. This process has become so standardized most people think that it is "stupid" or "bad" when things do not fall into standard limits.
Unfortunately, the same effect can be seen in independent films. If you want to make a bit of money and garner some critical attention, grab a couple of desparate B-list character actors, make one of them angst-ridden, homosexual, a murderer, throw in quirky but intellectual dialogue, maybe a different editing speed or style, and a digital camera, and you are set. I have no problem with any of these things by themselves, but I do have a problem when they become the standard for a norm.
In the end, as much as I liked "A History of Violence" and the dialogue which it attempts to foster, I, prompted by my fellow-audience members, must not become caught up in an alternative culture that is as totalized as the mainstream one which we mock. We must be prepared to criticize the criticizers.
