The Talented Mr. Mortensen

I'll have a review of Eastern Promises, the new Viggo Mortensen-David Cronenberg collaboration, in the next National Review; for now, suffice it to say that I liked the movie much more than A History of Violence, and (like Chris Orr) I thought Mortensen was flat-out fantastic.

He was profiled in the most recent GQ (not online, unfortunately), and he came across (as usual) as a particularly pretentious breed of Hollywood lefty, whose research for his new film - about a literature professor in Nazi Germany - inspired him to rattle on about the parallels between Bushism and National Socialism. (His list of Nazi-style crimes committed by this administration included "replacing all the judges - and not just the federal ones"). On the other hand, he also came across as something of a badass - he's been stabbed, had his face pushed into barb wire, broken his legs in an industrial accident while working at a smelting plant - and it's hard not to be impressed with a guy who researched his Eastern Promises role by taking long train rides through the Urals, talking to Russian mobsters and taping them in order to get his character's accent just right.

And it's hard, as well, not to admire any pretentious thespian with this kind of taste in comedy:

"Happy Gilmore, of course, is flawless from start to finish," he says, utterly serious. "It's a classic. The grandmother's performance is genius. Truly a heartbreaking performance."

On a related subject (Russia, not Adam Sandler), we've just taken Paul Starobin's 2005 profile of Vladimir Putin out from behind the firewall, and with the Russian succession in the news, it's well worth your time.

Comments

You subscribe to GQ?

jenny

Posted by jenny | September 14, 2007 11:36 PM

"A History of Violence" -- that was the one where Mortensen had fled his career in the Philly mob, and Ed Harris and William Hurt were trying to pull him back in? Exactly which Philadelphia mob is that? The notorious Anglo-Danish mafia?

Posted by Steve Sailer | September 14, 2007 11:42 PM

I so very much want the Russians not to be absolute Czarists that I sometimes imagine it's true. That's probably a mistake. But maybe this century they'll actually surprise us all.

Posted by Little Boots | September 15, 2007 12:20 AM

Steve, you don't actually think all mobsters are swarthy, do you?

Posted by Little Boots | September 15, 2007 12:22 AM

I must admit that his accent in EP startles me
because all the Russians I have known, and the ones
I spent time with in Russia, did not have that
sound.....perhaps the mob does eh???
>:-)

Posted by Rosalee | September 15, 2007 1:46 AM

Ross deserves credit for being able to enjoy (and critique) movies based on their own merits and not letting the personal politics of those involved influence his evaluation (and enjoyment). That is NOT true of most of his National Review colleagues (or many of his commenters.)

Posted by tgb1000 | September 15, 2007 9:12 AM

By insisting on throwing in your usual "Hollywood Lefties are unserious" shtick, you are, of course, participating in precisely what you deride in Dana Stevens.

But when people agree with your politics, of course, it's not crude or annoying. Why, it's the kind of class we look for here at the Atlantic!

"A History of Violence" -- that was the one where Mortensen had fled his career in the Philly mob, and Ed Harris and William Hurt were trying to pull him back in? Exactly which Philadelphia mob is that? The notorious Anglo-Danish mafia?

Fiction (fĭk'shən), n. An imaginative creation or a pretense that does not represent actuality but has been invented.

But no, you're right, Sailer. Every criminal in every movie should be black.

(And before you jump down my throat, yes, that is what he's complaining about, folks.)

Posted by Freddie | September 15, 2007 10:07 AM

Oh Freddie, stop being so politically correct. Everyone knows white people never commit crimes. It's a proven statistical fact.

Posted by tgb1000 | September 15, 2007 11:09 AM

re: Hollywood Lefties are unserious.

I wouldn't paint so broadly, but Viggo doesn't help the stereotype. He's replacing all the judges?

But maybe he's right. Maybe Hitler read Art. II, Sec. 2 of the Constitution and got excited.

Posted by JA | September 15, 2007 2:28 PM

But no, you're right, Sailer. Every criminal in every movie should be black.

They can be brown, too - especially if they're Muslim!

Posted by Woody Bombay | September 15, 2007 5:48 PM

I think Steve was going for Italian here, actually. (Black criminals aren't usually called "the Mafia.") I've never seen the film, but its Wikipedia entry explicitly claims that Mortenson's character was part of the "Philadelphia Irish Mafia." I don't know if such a mob actually exists or existed in Philadelphia, but it certainly did in Boston, so what's the big deal?

Posted by James Kabala | September 15, 2007 7:35 PM

"Fiction (fĭk'shən), n. An imaginative creation or a pretense that does not represent actuality but has been invented."

"I've never seen the film, but its Wikipedia entry explicitly claims that Mortenson's character was part of the "Philadelphia Irish Mafia." I don't know if such a mob actually exists or existed in Philadelphia, but it certainly did in Boston, so what's the big deal?"

I'm guessing that what Sailer was getting at here was that it's helpful if a movie about a gritty topic such as the mob, however fictional, made a better attempt at verisimilitude. Such an attempt might involve casting Irish or Italian actors as Irish or Italian mobsters, rather than casting a Scandinavian actor as one.

To continue my attempt at Sailer-interpretation, my guess is that he would be less troubled by a Scandinavian actor playing a Russian, as Mortensen does in Eastern Promises and as Stellan Skarsgård did successfully (in my non-expert opinion) in The Hunt for Red October. Perhaps this is because there might be more overlap in appearances between a Baltic Russian and a Scandinavian.

Just my speculation. Perhaps Sailer will elaborate himself.

Posted by Fred | September 15, 2007 8:44 PM

I'm guessing that what Sailer was getting at here was that it's helpful if a movie about a gritty topic such as the mob, however fictional, made a better attempt at verisimilitude.

A fair point, but "A History of Violence" is in no way, shape, or any form a movie about the mob, at least not in sense that "Goodfellas" or "Casino" are movies about the mob.

Posted by Immoralist | September 15, 2007 8:59 PM

Speaking of Irish mob-oriented entertainment, the second season of Showtime's great Irish Mob show The Brotherhood starts on 9/30. No Scandinavians cast as Rhode Island Irish-Americans, as far as I know, but you do have a British Jew (Jason Isaacs) and an Australian (Jason Clarke) in lead roles as the Caffee brothers. This is balanced out by casting Fionnula Flanagan, who is 110% Irish, as their mother.

BTW, this might be of more interest to Sailer's regular readers than Douthat's, but, according to Wikipedia, here is Isaacs explaining how is youth in Liverpool helped prepare him for playing the heavy today:

"There is a streak of cruelty in me that comes from having a quite competitive background. There were four boys in the house and we were often pretty unkind to each other. Also, it wasn't a great thing to be a Jewish teenager when the National Front were passing leaflets around the school and attacking us where we gathered at the weekends."

Posted by Fred | September 15, 2007 9:30 PM

Mortensen looks amazingly Russian in "Eastern Promises" -- a great physical impression. The movie is probably just as preposterous as "A History of Violence" but its less familiar setting amidst Russians in London makes it easier for me to enjoy than Cronenberg's clankingly inept vision of America.

On the other hand, you won't come out of "Eastern Promises" with a very statistically accurate impression of the demographics of which kind of ex-Soviet mobsters dominate the female-trafficking industry today.

Posted by Steve Sailer | September 16, 2007 2:12 AM

The point is that movies about organized crime families have to have a highly specific ethnic setting. It's the nature of extended families with strong in-group moralities that they have to come from a specific culture. An extended family from a few villages in west-central Sicily, for example, can produce a very effective secret crime organization because they have multiple family ties of loyalty to each other going back many generations.

In contrast, to pick an extreme example, Tiger Woods' daughter's relatives -- who are Swedish, Thai, Chinese, Black, American Indian, etc., -- would not make a good organized crime family at all. The police interrogators could play the Swedes off against the Thais, and Indians against the Chinese, and it would all fall apart. Similarly, Queen Victoria's grandsons in Germany, Russia and England couldn't settle the unpleasantness of the summer of 1914 in an amicable family manner because they belonged to different nations.

A lot of critics loved "A History of Violence" because Cronenberg's casting super-WASPs like Ed Harris and William Hurt and half-Norwegian Viggo Mortensen as members of a supposed American organized crime family telegraphed the message that this movie wasn't really about the real world at all, it was instead an allegory about the unspeakable evil at the heart of American foreign policy, yadda yadda yadda ...

"Eastern Promises" isn't as tendentious, but the whole plot turns on the crucial point that this white slaving crime family in London is supposed to be an ethnic majority Russian crime family open to letting in a confident, competent, and commanding ethnic majority stranger who happens show up from Russia wanting a job as a chauffeur. And we see how well that works out for them!

So, the movie kind of self-deconstructs itself over its timidity about not portraying the demographic tendencies of Russian women-traffickers mobsters more accurately.

Posted by Steve Sailer | September 16, 2007 2:35 AM

Have not seen this movie, but had the family consisted of siloviki and the new hire part of the siloviki as well, this would be sufficient to establish a mafia-like trust among fellow Russians. This, in fact, is how our country is run now. All former chekists pulling the strings.

Posted by Sergey | September 16, 2007 2:55 AM

The movie is probably just as preposterous as "A History of Violence" but its less familiar setting amidst Russians in London makes it easier for me to enjoy than Cronenberg's clankingly inept vision of America.

Now there's a misfired fusillade that comically hits the orphanage. You could level the same "not realistic enough" complaint against the entire canon of John Ford westerns (even The Searchers!) for their romanticized vision of the American west. But that's utterly missing the point. Did John Ford care about whether his westerns corresponded to historical fact? No! Did he care that many of his Indian characters were portrayed by white actors? No! The man made myths, not documentaries, for chrissakes.

Look, David Cronenberg probably didn't give two twats worth of cock about whether his "A History of Violence" accurately corresponded with some vague impression of "authentic" small-town American life. My reading of the film is that he was mostly interested in deconstructing a particular mythologized portrait of Americana as symbolized in many western films, while simultaneously showing lots of brutal, kickass violence and hot, kinky sex. Mission accomplished. It's a fun movie, one that let's us have our cake and eat it too. But in no sense is it supposed to be a didactic indictment of American life.

Posted by Immoralist | September 16, 2007 3:31 AM

If you want to deconstruct westerns, then you should set your film in the west (e.g., like "Unforgiven"), not in what appears to be rural Pennsylvania, with a climax in suburban Philadelphia.

Posted by Steve Sailer | September 16, 2007 3:49 AM

The wife and I saw "A History of Violence" at the $3 second run dump theatre in North Hollywood, and the low-budget Saturday night crowd gave it the raspberry, laughing derisively at numerous phony turns in the plot.

In contrast, the critics found it a thought provoking work of art:

"A masterpiece of indirection and pure visceral thrills, David Cronenberg's latest mindblower is the feel-good, feel-bad movie of the year."
-- Manohla Dargis, NEW YORK TIMES

"A gripping, incendiary, casually subversive piece of work that marries pulp watchability with larger concerns without skipping a beat."
-- Kenneth Turan, LOS ANGELES TIMES

"Packed inside David Cronenberg's latest film, which presents itself as gift-wrapped, shoot-'em-up entertainment, is a sobering reflection on our culture's attitude toward violence."
-- Desson Thomson, WASHINGTON POST

Apparently, the critics decided it was an anti-Bush and anti-American film, so therefore it had to be good:

"It's a savage film that questions its savagery every step of the way and asks its audience to consider the costs of Dirty Harry diplomacy writ large. It will hit you like a ton of bricks. Don't miss it."
-- Glenn Whipp, LOS ANGELES DAILY NEWS

But the plot and the dialogue about a small town nice guy who isn't what he seems, just appears off from the first five minutes of the film, as if nobody involved with it had ever been to a small town and had no clue how anybody would actually act in these situations.

It doesn't help that "A History of Violence" is another ultra-serious movie made from a graphic novel (i.e., expensive comic book), like Road to Perdition, but without that film's expensive cinematography, sets, costumes, and musical score. The film is full of the kind of ridiculous incidents that look cool in a graphic novel but ring false when projected 30 feet high on the screen.

Posted by Steve Sailer | September 16, 2007 3:56 AM

Sergey writes:

"but had the family consisted of siloviki and the new hire part of the siloviki as well, this would be sufficient to establish a mafia-like trust among fellow Russians. This, in fact, is how our country is run now. All former chekists pulling the strings."

Indeed, excellent point. But that's not how "Eastern Promises" is plotted. Without giving too much away, let me just say that the KGB are the _good_ guys in this movie.

Posted by Steve Sailer | September 16, 2007 4:01 AM

According to IMDB, "A History of Violence" had a production budget of $32 million and made $31 million at the American box office, so, despite its pulpiness, it appealed a lot more to critics, who tended to read it as a Canadian's anti-American allegory, than to the public.

That said, "Eastern Promises" is quite a bit better.

Posted by Steve Sailer | September 16, 2007 4:23 AM

A lot of critics loved "A History of Violence" because Cronenberg's casting super-WASPs like Ed Harris and William Hurt and half-Norwegian Viggo Mortensen as members of a supposed American organized crime family telegraphed the message that this movie wasn't really about the real world at all, it was instead an allegory about the unspeakable evil at the heart of American foreign policy, yadda yadda yadda ...

I don't doubt for a moment that some critics interpreted the film that way, but they're completely wrong. "A History of Violence" is not a political allegory about American foreign policy. I know Cronenberg and the movie's screenwriter haven't exactly denied that it's just that, but construing the film in such a tendentious way completely ignores a ton of contrary evidence. In the movie, there's really no ambiguity at all when it comes to whether Viggo's character is justified in using violence to protect his family, because the bad guys are pretty much depicted as straight up villains who deserve exactly what they get. How you make the leap from a tacit endorsement of violence in defense of hearth and home to a critique of the Iraq war is beyond me...

All this political stuff is frankly off base. There just isn't much evidence that Cronenberg, a Canadian, has ever cared much about American foreign policy or even America in general. We're talking about a director who has spent most of his career as a body horror specialist exploring freaky high concept notions such as twins who share the same nervous system, people who play videogames by plugging flesh pods into newly created orifices, and car crash enthusiasts who fuck each other's open wounds. The man is not Paul Haggis.

Posted by Immoralist | September 16, 2007 4:23 AM

The wife and I saw "A History of Violence" at the $3 second run dump theatre in North Hollywood, and the low-budget Saturday night crowd gave it the raspberry, laughing derisively at numerous phony turns in the plot.

Ah, the audience anecdote. Well, I can play that game, too. I saw the movie twice, once on opening night and then again weeks later at the $1 theater in Plano, TX. The first crowd didn't laugh much, except at the obviously funny parts (Maria Bello playing cheerleader). The second crowd didn't laugh at all, but really liked the action scenes. The two guys in front of me kept a running dialogue about which killings they liked best. "Did you see that guy's nose? He got FUCKED up!" "Yeah, for real, dawg."

According to IMDB, "A History of Violence" had a production budget of $32 million and made $31 million at the American box office, so, despite its pulpiness, it appealed a lot more to critics, who tended to read it as a Canadian's anti-American allegory, than to the public.

The movie recouped its investment on overseas sales and DVD purchases, so it did well enough, overall.

Posted by Immoralist | September 16, 2007 4:43 AM

"I don't doubt for a moment that some critics interpreted the film that way, but they're completely wrong. "A History of Violence" is not a political allegory about American foreign policy. I know Cronenberg and the movie's screenwriter haven't exactly denied that it's just that ..."

Well, there you go. Cronenberg's a talented genre director (as "Eastern Promises" shows a lot more than did "A History of Violence"), but a lot of overheated critics went off on a pretentious political jag over this dopey little film's supposed philosophical implications. And Cronenberg let them. He's a smart guy and he knew how they were misinterpreting his film, but, hey, it got the movie a lot of free publicity in the prestige press, so why look a gift horse in the mouth?

Posted by Steve Sailer | September 16, 2007 4:44 AM

And Cronenberg let them. He's a smart guy and he knew how they were misinterpreting his film, but, hey, it got the movie a lot of free publicity in the prestige press, so why look a gift horse in the mouth?

Bingo. No such thing as bad publicity...

Glad you liked Eastern Promises. For what it's worth, I think it's better than A History of Violence, too.

Posted by Immoralist | September 16, 2007 4:58 AM

Thanks, this has been an informative exchange.

Posted by Steve Sailer | September 16, 2007 9:22 AM

I'm sure that all film viewers whose critical judgment stands or falls on ethnic-stereotype verisimilitude will appreciate your contributions to this thread, Steve.

Personally, I thought the plot in History of Violence fell apart because the climactic scene represented stupid and unrealistic behavior for any street-wise crime gang, whether they be Black, Irish, Russian, Bantu, or Faroese. I enjoyed the flick anyway, because Mortensen's performance was brilliant, and the legacy of violence is a subject that transcends race.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | September 17, 2007 12:26 PM

blanching machinule splendourproof mazopathic underlineman echeneididae formeret bontebuck
http://etaxisigma.tripod.com >Eta Xi Sigma Chapter of Sigma Gamma Rho Sorority
http://www.math.binghamton.edu/zaslav/Bsg/sgbgprobs.html

Posted by Randal Berry | December 20, 2007 2:56 AM