What does 'A History Of Violence' mean?

Did you watch it?

Can't stop the signal.

Its really just a common phrase... perhaps just in America.

for example, if a cop is investigating a man who is accused of domestic abuse.... the cop would probably want to know: "Does he have a history of violence?"... in other words... are any violent crimes on his record? Does he have a pattern of being violent? If so... that could assist the investigation and help confirm what really happened.

so basically the title is saying that Tom Stall may be a peaceful person- but he has a history of violence- no matter how hard he tries to repress it.

Just to add my two cents to what has already been said: A History of Violence refers to the film's protagonist, Tom Stall, and his attempt to leave his violent life as an enforcer in the Philadelphia mafia behind. Stall confronts, and kills, the two armed robbers who enter his little diner. But this scene is also, in the greater context, a metaphor for his life. Stall is not merely fighting these men in an attempt to protect his employees, and his patrons. He is also fighting his own proclivities. In that moment, the facade of Tom Stall disappears, and Joey Cusack appears. Before he shoots Leland in the face, he is stabbed in the foot. On the surface, this would appear to be a simple injury. But it is also representative of a crack in the veneer that is Tom Stall, and soon his old life catches up with him in the form of Carl Fogarty.

The sins of the father are passed on to his son, as well. Jack Stall, who has previously demurred when faced with possible physical harm, now explodes in his own violent episode. When confronted by Bobby and his friends in the hallway, instead of using his intellect to defuse the situation, he attacks Bobby.

Never for the sake of peace and quiet deny your convictions-Dag Hammarskjold

A History of Violence merely means the main character has a history of violence. The same way you may describe someone as having a history of crime, teaching, fraud etc.

It's an interesting point. Something I haven't thought about since I originally watched the movie. But yeah, it is fairly common for movies to have misleading or obscure title's that maybe do not fully explain the movie until you see it. Still haven't figured out Fled though. And 'we've got to Fled' isn't really an excuse.

Thanks to everyone who has replied to this thread.

Sure they all were and are useful and clarifying (each, in its own way) and appreciated!

It certainly would be more appreciated if anyone else had their thoughts about all the asked questions and following responses...

:)

From Roger Ebert's review:
"David Cronenberg says his title "A History of Violence" has three levels: It refers (1) to a suspect with a long history of violence; (2) to the historical use of violence as a means of settling disputes, and (3) to the innate violence of Darwinian evolution, in which better-adapted organisms replace those less able to cope."

Tom/Joey's personal history as well as, perhaps, more broadly, potential for violence ingrained in the DNA - as the example of Tom/Joey's son showcases when he suddenly decides to deal with the bully and does so rather excessively once the safety catch is off. He clearly has inherited that capacity.



"facts are stupid things" Ronald Reagan