Pictures
wtlau on flickr
Blogroll
- Angel Angie in London
- The Divine Miss N
- The Heidi Report
- Julie and Warren
- Kristen in London!
- Lau or Never
- London Business School MBA Blog
- Man. Myth. Morland.
- MaRS Blog
- Patxi @ London Business School
- Random Acts of Informacity
- RusGirl to LBS
- Solange in Alberta's Capital
- hespero
Hex Luminae - Meticulous Vandalism
- RADS Digitized
- Von's Room
- World According to -tvu
- World Sojourner: 3760
Previously
- Variety post
- Interview deconstructed
- 船到橋頭自然直
- Hey, that's us!
- From the e-mail archives
- T-minus 5 days
- Oilers vs. Preds - December 28th, 2005
Archives
- March 2006
- April 2006
- May 2006
- June 2006
- July 2006
- August 2006
- September 2006
- October 2006
- November 2006
- December 2006
- January 2007
- February 2007
- March 2007
- April 2007
- May 2007
- June 2007
- July 2007
- August 2007
- September 2007
- October 2007
- November 2007
- December 2007
- January 2008
- March 2008
- April 2008
- May 2008
- June 2008
- July 2008
- September 2008
- January 2009
- April 2011
Site Feed
Contact
- wincentlau (hotmail.com)
Buttons
March 14, 2006
As Subtle as a Slap in the Face
Cronenberg believes that A History of Violence was snubbed from the Oscars because it was, among other things, "too subtle" a message.I think the movie won critical acclaim because it was incredibly accessable to the masses. The symbolism was ridiculously hamfisted. We're talking symbolism that you'll find in your average Grade 10 English class, people.
Among the themes that are explored in the movie, there is the in-your-face dichotomy of Tom and Joey.
We get that Tom is kind and considerate. We see that he cares about being tender with his wife even down to how he makes love to her. Joey on the other hand is rough and gutteral and blatantly reacts that way: Even down to how he, in this case, fucks his wife.
Cronenberg (or the source material) feels the need to show this contrast to us by exposing the character to exactly the same set of situations in each persona. We're supposed to marvel at the striking contrast of the character. Agreed, the contrast underlines the conflict between the two parts - it's impossible to miss it though with the over-the-top way it's portrayed. They wave it in front of you, the word parallelism written out in three-story tall flaming letters. The only way I think it could be more blatant is if they played the movie with a split screen like in Timecode: One half devoted to Tom, the other to Joey. Or maybe if one side was done with a regular exposure, and the other was in negative. Ooh, or if they got Superman to do one and Bizarro Superman to do the other... I digress.
What really capped off the cliché for me was Tom's eventual rebirth and character resolution. This character growth was symbolized - in a literary device used since the dawn of time - by water. It would really make more sense if Tom, covered in blood, just went to the shower. He was in a house. There's probably soap and towels there. Not in this movie though. Tom needs a vast expanse of water; large enough to bear his chest, wade into its depths and wash his soul clean.
Can you blame the academy for not celebrating being spoon-fed such pablum?
