A Hole in My Heart

A HOLE IN MY HEART... I was surprised, disappointed and most of all: shocked! Though the contents of this film (both images and themes) sure are truly disturbing, it weren't really those that shocked me the most. The end-result did, and even more: What has become of Lukas Moodysson! It seemed like Moodysson, after LILJA 4-EVER, skipped a few phases in his evolution as a film-maker, and then suddenly came up with this experiment (which is what it is actually: an experiment, NOT a movie). During the first 15 minutes I had the feeling this just might end up being a 9/10 movie. By the time it was finished I felt like rating this movie 4/10 would still be too much.

So, what is it about? Well, you can forget about a plot, because there is none. Just four characters and the stuff they do in an apartment. Rickard lives in his apartment together with his timid son Eric. The latter appears to suffer from some sort of autistic disorder or something (whatever it is, he's got mental issues). He also has a deformed hand and some very weird hobbies: he has worms for pets, he seems to collect dirt and junk in his room (don't ask me how it got there, since he is never seen leaving the apartment) and likes to listen to electronic noises and distortions through his headphones. Other than that, he does nothing. Rickard himself is into making home-made porn videos. Other than that, he too does nothing else. Geko is his friend and fellow porn actor who spends most of his time at Rickards place. Enter Tess, a quite attractive young blond girl who is into hard sex, make-up, taking a lot of showers and snorting coke (amongst other things in general). Now prepare yourself for a disturbing descent into the depraved minds of these four characters. Admittedly, this might seem fascinating or intriguing, but however, due to the lack of any form of coherency whatsoever, also prepare for boredom to kick in about halfway through the movie and best expect it to never go away.

Despite the nudity and pornographic subject matter in this film, no clearly visible shots of penetration are shown (though a rather explicit female masturbation scene does grace the screen for a minute there). However, a lot of other offensive images are being shown (along with plenty acts of the disturbed). Needless to go into them now (and besides that: I don't want to spoil anything for anyone), but I'll just name one random fact: You'll never look at a raw steak the same way again after having seen this film.

But now for the worst things about this whole experiment. There wasn't a real script to begin with (one page of the script, according to Moodysson, had only written the word "excorcism" on it). Moodysson clearly had no clue what the hell he was doing while shooting this 'movie'. Neither had his long-time director's assistant, the crew nor the actors. Moodysson only gave vague directions like "Don't act, be yourself" or "It's a documentary, not a movie". He sure might have had a lot of ideas, but it was clear to me that in no way Moodysson was able to communicate them to his actors. At one point Moodysson even shut down and left the set, leaving the actors to continue spewing out their confused thoughts on this project. (Source: Published interview, "Discussion on set"-featurette). True thing might be that a lot of metaphors and statements are to be found in this movie, but as a viewer you just have no clue what to look for. So if anyone says to you: "This movie is about this or that" or "This is what Moodysson is trying to say", then be careful and take it with a big grain of salt. Because you will never be sure until you've asked the director himself (and I even doubt he can give you a straight answer himself).

But I'd like to add just a few more positive notes though. On a technical level, this movie is pretty interesting. Especially the editing is remarkable and progressive. The same can be said about the many sound effects and the way they blend together with the on screen images (aswell as the complete absence of any sound in some scenes). It also strangely leads to the conclusion that both editor and director might have been on drugs, which actually could be a good thing in experimental film-making. And that just was another key-word here: "Experimental" (film-making), instead of the word "Amateur" some people like to apply on this film. No matter what's being said, Moodysson is an experienced and gifted film-maker, so why he decided to throw all his knowledge overboard is beyond me. Indeed, A HOLE IN MY HEART might have worked very effectively as an experimental short-film, but as a full length feature it fails after about 45 minutes.

But love it or hate it: This still remains an unforgettable piece of film. I have a difficult time recommending this to anybody, as I have a lot of trouble with liking much about it myself. But people who have seen Makavejev's SWEET MOVIE, Lars von Trier's THE IDIOTS, Harmony Korine's GUMMO or maybe (but to a lesser extend) Dylan Bank's NIGHTMARE might be interested in seeking out this Moodysson effort. But keep in mind that all the aforementioned movies had at least some sort of story, as where A HOLE IN MY HEART doesn't even try to tell one.

To end this all, I feel I just might want to suggest something to Lukas Moodysson himself: Maybe it wouldn't be a bad thing to go and visit a psychiatrist and get some good medication. Then, please come back and make another movie, this time telling another decent story. Otherwise I'd suggest going back to your first love and start writing poetry again. Good luck either way.

Having loved 'Together' and admired, for the most part, 'Lilya 4-Ever' (as well as his short films), I was dreadfully disappointed with this new work from Moodyson. In an interview about 'A Hole On My Heart' Moodyson stated that he thought it was his best and most complex film, before saying that he didn't know what the film was supposed to be about, not offering any explanation other than 'it has many layers'. Such statements reveal entirely the reason behind the film's failure. Depsite Moodyson's assertion of complexity, there is simply nothing in this 90+ minute film that could not have been adequately communicated in a short. Simply juxtaposing unpleasant images of cosmetic surgery and action men figures with home-made pornography does not constitute a complex statement on anything. In fact the film is hopelessly meandering and one has the increasing feeling that it was 'discovered' in the editing room. I'm very interested in non-narrative film-making, and I don't need a 'story' to communicate events to me, but it is evident to me when there is a severe paucity of drive and ideas, and that feeling was evident throughout a viewing of this film. It concerns me that this film will be defended by people who feel that sitting through the unpleasant content constitutes some sort of test of intellectual rigour and that those who didn't like it are not prepared to 'face up' to the reality this film purports to present. In fact the simple truth is that this is an empty film, with a painful lack of understanding of how to dramatise ideas. I really hope Moodyson comes up with something better next time - I think his talents outstrip nonsense like this.

In many ways i can understand why people would take a disliking to this film, it is very difficult... but it's also one of the most human films i've seen for a long long time.

It's a film for people who don't want to go to see a film to 'enjoy it' it's a film that is what it is, it's not a sing and dance, it's not an entertainment piece.

I found this film very interesting indeed and found all the characters to have a lot of depth to them. This film is much closer to Lilja 4-ever rather than Together, so that may sway you to one way or the other. What makes this harder than Lilja 4-ever is that it isn't addressing issues in a very forward manner, it isn't always clear what this film is 'trying to say'.

But yeah, if you give it the chance and don't come to this film for a laugh or to enjoy yourself and are actually interested in film in it's purest form, then this should prove of worth and an interesting purchase.

I chose Moodysson's film out of another 200 at the Jerusalem Film Festival because of the good impression of Fu__ing Åmål. Apparently, he has gone to a totally different place meanwhile...

Even before genres and modes, I believe there are two basic elements for any film whatsoever: there has to be a reason, a motivation for what you see, and there needs to be some effective cinematic language in use. Some good films do well with just one, sometimes one feeds the other. My problem with Ett Hål i mitt hjärta, and eventually what made me give up watching halfway through, was that I found none.

A blatant, border-breaking experiment? nice, but after 15 minutes it got boring. A manifest against the porno industry? OK, but the shattered style blocked any attempt of mine to get closer to the characters. If anything, it reinstated how essential it is to identify with your protagonists on the screen in order to feel empathy.

I don't mind seeing labia all over the screen - there just has to be a REASON. It's the fine border between noise and music, scribbles and art.

It's a promise. Clickbait. All movie long you're just waiting for something to happen. At least evil people do evil, but these ones are actually doing nothing at all, as if stuck in a void filled with assumption and tension for a war that is never to come: next to some loud music and naked girls, there is nothing but anticipation for a non-satisfaction. Like the Rolling Stones, because Mick Jagger also has become pretty old. It just doesn't come. You can wait for it or spend a beautiful evening doing something else. This movie is better than your random scary movie but never reaches the level of Saw; rather, it's like Liz Truss: it promises, it promises, yet when the going gets tough, the tough gets going.