A history of violence (2005)

A history of violence wasn't as weird as I thought it would be - on the surface of it, that is. Cronnenberg's later stuff hasn't matched up to the earlier films (Spider...). In fact, I found this to be quite ordinary thriller material with some Cronnenbergian themes thrown in. Cronnenberg's depiction of violence is gritty and there's good stuff here about what violence do to people, but still he doesn't really have a clear focus (but maybe that's off the point with most Cronnenberg films anyways). Some scenes just leave me in the dark. Is this supposed to be about redemption? Oh, don't think so. Rather, this is about a film about lack of identity and pseudo-identity. But why did Cronnenberg make it so easy for himself by making this into an issue about "are you Tom or are you Joey"? And if this film is supposed to be about flatness (no depths etc.) I'm not sure if I get the point. Stylistically, this could be a TV movie. I don't know whether that's a good thing or a bad thing. This is one more of those film that show you that small-town bliss isn't what it appears to be. Viggo Mortensen plays the decent family man who works at a diner and lives a cosy existence with his family. What is interesting here is how Cronnenberg plays with the notion of "justified" or "heroic" violence and puts it into a questionable framework. Some has interpreted the film as a film about "the survival of the fittest". I can see that - but I'm not sure what perspective the film itself stands for ("there's no real moral self anyway"?). As an exploration of "history of violence", darwinian or not, this is not convincing to me and some points are rather cheap (how the son of the father turns out to be just like dadddy... what a discovery). So I'm not saying boo-hoo, Cronnenberg is a hideous anti-humanist. I'm just saying I don't get it.