Tom Stall runs a small diner, in a small town living his own small but happy version of the American dream until he kills a pair of murderous thugs who insist his name is Joey. Uncomfortable being a hero he attempts to sink back into obscurity only to be visited by a larger group of even more dangerous men who make the same claim and demand that he accompany him on an ominous trip. Who is Tom Stall? The movie asks other questions but it's the answer to this one that answers them.

This is a masterpiece. A History of Violence far outstrips its simple plot and meditates on territory that has been the domain of some truly great films. It's too easy to bring up the film's resemblance to A Simple Plan. Instead I'll compare it to The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance. To live free unhampered by tyranny pursuing happiness is the great theme of the American dream. But what if we must be tyrants to control tyrants? Worse yet what if we are all tyrants? In the hands of Cronenberg what could have been reduced to a bland revenge fantasy or simple action thriller is transformed into a complex rumination on the tension between our desire for freedom and our need for governance. Justice will solve the problem of evil but there is no one fit to judge.

Cronenberg who has called himself a Darwinian comes off as more of an evolutionary agnostic. He refuses to give up on the idea that there is a way to break the cycle- even if it starts with blowing someone's head off to get everyone else's attention and he senses that the hope lies in such unscientific territory as love, forgiveness, mercy and redemption- why else give us such a family so clearly and easily loved? A Darwinian I'm not. The fittest may survive (at least awhile) but then I also believe the meek will inherit the earth. Those who want to argue this point can do so with Christ when he comes back with his own righteous judgment to settle the issue and hand control over to those he chooses. I also believe we should work out our salvation with fear and trembling- something that Cronenberg seems to grasp intuitively as he assigns a distinct moral value of horror struck awe to his protagonist Tom Stall, who at the end of this film is left as mute witness. In the absence of an identifiable moral imperative we are utterly lost.

By mute do I mean Stall is a survivor of his own cycle? Have I given away a key plot point? It depends on what you think I mean by the word mute. Some or all of Tom Stall may have died by the end of this film but then again at least some of everyone else has died as well. But has hope died? I would argue that Cronenberg stop well short of despair. He has created characters too winsome, with dreams too bright for us to give up on them. And that is the true power of this film. There is too much at stake and we want to keep working that issue of violence over in our minds until we find the answer. Speaking as a fellow seeker I offer this review of the best movie I've seen this year.

Some will find the films intense sexuality and violence troubling. Those people should stay away unless they are willing to wrestle through to the point Cronenberg is making. A History of Violence juggles those elements with a grace that it might be easy to miss if all you want to do is count the swear words. Cronenberg is fully aware of the exploitive aspect of it all- that's the very reason he uses it- otherwise his film would just preach to the choir. Rarely have characters been so full, so fleshed out. In a uniformly excellent cast William Hirt reminds why he is one of the great actors of our generation completely disappearing into a role, creating a complex but hilarious character whom I can't describe without spoiling the story. But I will say that he is like Stall's comic shadow, the under the breath giggle at Stall's naiveté. It's a performance that is at once tragic, comic and loathsome but it jets us back to that central question, “Who is Tom Stall?” Perhaps even better phrased, "Is Tom Stall alone?&" or even more focussed, "Will man be the measure of all things?&"