History of Violence (5)

Sunday October 2, 2005 - 4:47PM EDT

This is another one of those different movies. But it is not different for the sake of being different or different just because it wants to be. It is different because it has to be to tell its story. Actually the basic aspects of the movie are pretty standard and well done. It is the movie as a whole that is different. It doesn't have your typical ending. It makes it more realistic because you see just a bit of people lives and it makes no attempt to sew up the open ends for the sake of making things look good. The thing I noticed first was the use of tight camera angles to start the movie. It setup the tension that was used throughout the whole movie. The plot could have been done two ways. It could have been a tricky one or it could have been straight. The plot was played straight here. No funny business or complex logic. One thing that also stood out was the violence. But it wasn't gratuitous. It was violence with a purpose. You can't often say that about movie violence. Usually it is unneccessary to the plot. Even a movie like Kill Bill where violence is a huge part of the movie. It is more part of the style in Kill Bill then a plot mover. In this movie the violence moved the plot along. What I mean is that in Kill Bill people dying was a plot mover but the actual act of cuting someone's head off wasn't. In History of Violence the actual act of shoting somebody is integral to the plot. There is also a silent subtext to the movie about redemption or change or somemthing like that. It doesn't come out and make ask that question but I think you are supposed to ask it yourself. The DP did a great job on lighting because it really was used well. Even the film stock's neutral colors were a perfect selection for the movie. Suffice to say that production values were very high. It was a good movie. Though not for everybody.