![Screenshot_2023-06-12-01-22-54-638_org.videolan.vlc.png](https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/namiks/23vrpSDsKAWvNopYJsndFNR7YtxS6y97Nkz5gmeWBJr8RSBsqLxvLSQzpM8PMbGn332qH.png)

The other day I watched The Tree of Life, somehow getting it mixed up with this film. After watching that film, I remembered what led to me watching it: Viggo Mortensen, who isn't even in The Tree of Life! Well, having realised this, I decided to give both of them a watch anyway. Enjoying both of them fairly equally. I can't recall if I have ever seen A History of Violence, however. Perhaps a long, long time ago I had. Even now, I sit here thinking it may not have even been the film I had in mind in the first place. Viggo Mortensen is an actor that everyone seems to love purely due to his role in The Lord of the Rings, but not really given much light on any of his other roles. While being born in America but having moved around the world in his youth, some of his works end up with him having a bit of a weird American accent added. I guess, the best way to describe it is when you see an actor that is clearly British speaking in an American accent, it seems almost jarring. This brings the question: have many people actually seen his other films? Don't get me wrong, he is a very good actor. So much so that I suddenly remembered he existed and had to search up some of his titles I may have missed. 

This tends to be how I come across films these days. Weird bouts of sudden interest or ideas that lead me down the rabbithole into various libraries of directors and actors that may or may not have had any relevance in years. Viggo Mortensen's library tends to be a bit hit and miss, however. I think the last film of his I had seen and enjoyed was Captain Fantastic, a pretty low budget indie film that was marketed as a comedy but was actually an incredibly depressing story on loss and fatherhood, Mortensen carrying the film with a lead role. His older works, however? Well, I can't seem to remember them much at all. Here comes in A History of Violence. Coming out in 2005 but feeling like a film that was shot on the cheap in the late 90s. Now, I'm not saying it is a bad film at all, but one that does have some weird moments or filmmaking techniques that stood it to me and had me curious as to *why* this was accepted; mostly coming to the conclusion that this was what was really the norm in the years prior, as if it has been collecting dust for a few decades before being released to the public.

<center>**A History of Violence**</center>

![Screenshot_2023-06-12-01-23-22-980_org.videolan.vlc.png](https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/namiks/23t72pwrGjf6jKF4HaytSik1trNyaoAhtbfw9PpG1dgBjMAA7RroMAPTP2oVvmqwwpRGf.png)

A History of Violence is the type of film you might expect from the era. At a time in which Hollywood made simple and almost repetitive stories. Though, still creative and entertaining. The film's narrative carries off from the wave of interest in mob films that came about in the 90s. Though featuring a fun perspective on the traditional setup. We follow an everyday family man that works in a diner in a rural state in the United States of America. This man being humble, down to Earth, but ultimately nothing too special. Your average citizen that provides for his family, cares, and earns a paycheck to support them. Much like Fargo, a group of crooks roll into town causing all kinds of trouble along the way, stopping by at the diner only to spread their evil there, attempting to rob the place and threatening to kill the workers. From here we get a glimpse of our protagonist's true nature, as he overwhelms the crooks and kills them, becoming a huge local hero with much media attention. Father figure singlehandedly defending his community against men with guns. As one might expect, this pulls in a ton of attention, leading to the diner becoming very popular, and media roaming around in his personal life.

The humble nature is seen quite soon. He rejects the media attention and just wants to go back to his everyday life as before. It makes sense, it is something some would expect after suffering a difficult ordeal such as taking two lives and now having cameras pointed at your home. But sooner or later it becomes clear that this personality is slowly having the surface scratched at, revealing a deeper set of secrets that he's desperately trying to keep buried. Mortensen, with an American accent, plays a pretty convincing average guy, I liked the way he seems uninterested in the world and wanting to keep his distance from things, even as it becomes clear that he's hiding something from everyone. To counter this character is his son, a weak, bullied teenager at school. Incapable of defending himself, he serves as a fundamental plot point later on. Though this balance helps keep things odd and mysterious: the weak and the vulnerable nature of his son coming from a father that seems weak himself. As if he's shutting people out. Though with the media attention comes dangerous faces, hailing from a different state and being part of the mob. Convinced that our protagonist is someone else, and not who he claims to be. 

I liked the way the film toys with this for a while before giving us an answer, though I think I would have preferred if it had remained this way, mysterious and almost full of suspense and tension as our protagonist insists they have the wrong person. It is highly evident they don't, and this is hardly a spoiler, don't worry. But I think I would have referred if the film continued that mystery on, not really telling us whether he is or is not. I found the film started to decline a bit once the truth became clear, especially as the character of the son became a bit more important to the plot. Alongside this little annoyance is the very strange audio in the film, it seems like the dialogue was recorded after the scenes and placed in during post production. It sounds very unnatural. If you know how Foley works, you'll understand what I mean here: sound effects that don't seem authentic, not really in sync with the characters and just a bit distracting. It was the dialogue for the most part that threw me off, but also some sound effects which seems to be mixed oddly. Some sounds seemed far louder than they should be, sometimes drowning out other sounds. Perhaps it was something on my end, but I'm not convinced it was at all.

Though the directing worked pretty well. We get perspectives of Mortensen's character that make him seem much more menacing and dangerous, especially with the composition of the camera looking up at him, giving us the feeling of him towering over us, being a danger. Shot on 35mm film, A History of Violence tends to be a darker looking film, with beautiful lighting tones when it comes to the daylight scenes. Low light or gentle diffused sunlight for the most part. I think I enjoyed the directing the most! But would I recommend it? Well, I don't think it's for everyone. And if you're a fan of Viggo Mortensen but haven't seen his other works, keep in mind how widely different they'll be to his character of Aragorn, that is for sure!

https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/namiks/EoEvm9is1DSJGKNK7cfBEKjhPnBcnqjgpyxewCjiJYLqVdkuFqhTyxabDTwFZsdLKKZ.png

<center>[Join the Movies and TV Shows Community Discord.](https://discord.gg/J2pAUxU4n7)</center>

<center>[Follow our curation trail!](https://hive.vote/dash.php?trail)</center>

<center>[Follow me over on Twitter!](https://twitter.com/nomadicnamiks)</center>