I watched these films one right after the other ("Promises", first). As they're thematically almost identical, and have the same male lead, it made sense to write a single review covering both. (The "Promises" section is at the end, if you're in a hurry.)
In "History", I'm not giving away any great secret when I reveal that Tom Stall really is a gangster trying to escape his past and lead a decent life. He's "outed" when obliged to kill the men robbing his diner, and the TV stories of his heroism come to the attention of those he thought would never be able to locate him. The rest of the film is basically a revenge tale in which Stall is obliged to kill every last one of them, including his brother (an almost-unrecognizable William Hurt, in a performance that sidesteps most of the "standard-gangster" clichés).
The problem is that there's not much else to the story. It's little more than a revenge tale that has no moral force, because Stall truly needs to protect himself and his family. There is no drama without choice. (Roger Ebert's argument that had Joey /truly/ become Tom, he would have died in the diner robbery, is absurd. Tom throws hot coffee at one of the robbers, which /any/ desperate person would have done if they were worried about the lives of those around them. Tom is virtually certain that the younger of the robbers /will/ kill one of his employees, even before he hands over the cash register's contents. This renders pointless any ambiguity about "who" Tom really is -- if you know you're going to die, you'll take any chance.)
Despite Cronenberg's averral that he wants the audience to identify with Stall's killings (rather than be revulsed by them), so that we have to consider their morality, the /fact/ is that Stall's need to violently defend himself is at least /legally/ justifiable, and the audience is completely on the side of a genuinely reformed gangster from the start. I greatly enjoyed the vicarious pleasure of seeing him off every one of his enemies, and most viewers are likely to cheer rather than turn away.
Another problem with "History" is the way Stall's wife is so quick to reject him when she learns the truth. We see, in an early sex scene, how much they genuinely care for each other, but even Tom's post-revelation rape (yes), which she thoroughly enjoys, is not enough to bring her to her senses. If Cronenberg is making the trite observation that we never /really/ know the people we live with, it would have been more effective if Stall's wife, though understandably frightened and anguished, were also at least /somewhat/ ambivalent about the situation. How can a woman who says "You're the best man I've ever known" be so quick to think the man she's spent almost 20 years with is a monster in disguise? But, no, she firmly rejects him until the final scene (which Cronenberg directs with beautiful restraint). I would have kicked her out and found a more-loyal mate.
There's no restraint in Cronenberg's continuing love for explicit gore. In both films people are brutally killed, and Cronenberg doesn't hesitate to show us -- in close-up -- such things as a slit throat pumping blood, or the nearly blown-off jaw of a still-living person. (If you think this is bad, take a look at the deleted scenes from "The Fly", some of which would likely have gotten that film an X rating.)
If "A History of Violence" is about character, rather than plot (as Roger Ebert suggests it is), you coulda fooled /me/. Its ending is largely determined by its beginning, and that is not the substance of character-driven stories. There is one genuinely clever and witty scene in which Stall's son, Jack, verbally humiliates the school bully. But Jack is later obliged to beat up the guy, and Stall is worried about being sued by the kid's parents (!!!).
"Eastern Promises" is about Russian gangsters in London. It, too, is a revenge story, but one of more complexity and subtlety. It has an audience-pleasing twist ending that is at least plausible, if not wholly likely.
Morton Vigoro -- I mean, Viggo Mortensen -- is a Russian criminal (Nikolai) who's the "driver" for a Russian gangster (Semyon -- Armand Mueller-Stahl) who runs a fine restaurant. Nikolai's tattoos reveal his criminal life; without these tattoos, he wouldn't be trusted, or for that matter, even be considered a criminal at all. When Semyon has had enough of his feckless son Kirill (Vincent Cassell), he agrees to have the kid offed, with Nikolai moving into Kirill's position -- which is what Nikolai has wanted all along. More I cannot say -- other than to be patient with the first few minutes of the film, which at first seem incomprehensible.
Unlike "History", "Promises" /is/ about character, and we're not sure how we're supposed to take Nikolai -- he seems to be a villain with just the faintest trace of a conscience. Kirill is particularly interesting, as his homophobia clearly covers his own sexual confusion. He's obviously in love with Nikolai. Nikolai's feelings about Kirill are not so clear. Is he just using Kirill -- or is he also attracted to him?
"Eastern Promises" is a legitimate drama, and if you can get past Cronenberg's horrifying neck slashings, you'll probably enjoy it.
(214 customers reviews)
Customers Rating=4.0 / 5.0
More Detail For Eastern Promises Blu ray
No comments:
Post a Comment