Director David Cronenberg's film "A History of Violence" brings a little-known graphic novel to life. The protagonist, Tom Stall (Viggo Mortensen), seems to be living the ideal life when suddenly the situation gets worse. Two robbers attempt to rob his restaurant in a small Indiana town, until Tom stops them by slamming a hot glass coffee pot in one's face and firing three gunshots into the other's chest. The carnage of the scene is intensified when chunks of flesh dangle from the shattered bone of a thief as he chokes on his own body's blood. The other robber's corpse is shown lying in the fog of shattered glass with blood pouring from each gunshot wound. Tom's heroic reactions seem like something he does to save the day, however, we only excuse his extreme reactions due to our general exposure to violence and desensitized consciousness. This type of brutal and unplanned violence becomes the protagonist's way of bringing peace throughout the film. The film's title reflects not only the protagonist's history of violence, but the history of violence in America. This simple film gracefully indicates how cinematic violence prevails as a reflection of American culture. “The History of Violence” isn't just another heartless film about a man running from his past. Instead, it serves as a window into understanding the desire for cinematic violence in America. While critics argue that the film is overly contextualized, the average American might argue that the film is not accurate enough. However, the beauty of the film lies in its complex ambiguity. The protagonist unwillingly becomes a national hero by defending his restaurant and innocent customers from ferocious thieves. Before that, he was blessed with... middle of paper......ence” is an example of something that is much more than that. Without connecting this film to current political events, the film may not have resonated as deeply with viewers. Americans continue to watch these types of violent films for entertainment; this enjoyment extends beyond the movie theater when audiences can walk away with new perspectives. Films live on through everyday conversations, books, and the Internet; however, this could only happen if we are able to connect the film's message to something in our lives. People receive messages better when they accept them willingly, and Cronenberg argues that Americans accept violence in films because we all have a personal history of violence; which “is inserted into our DNA” (Interview). Without preaching, he shows us why we desire what is publicly objectionable and how we can make peace with it.