Um Lugar Secreto

Oak Cliff Film Festival 2021 Greetings again from the darkness. Why would anyone be surprised that the actions of a teenager make no logical sense? Thirteen year old John (an excellent Charlie Shotwell, CAPTAIN FANTASTIC, 2014) comes across as a shy kid, and a curious one as well. He's a talented tennis player, enjoys going head-to-head in video games with his online friend, and even plays piano. Despite his upper class family life, we sense there is something a bit off about John - although his busy parents are supportive and his banter with his older sister is pretty normal. But his emotionless demeanor sends our mind to dark, uncertain places ... places we hope John doesn't go, although we kind of expect him to.

This is the first feature film directed by Pascual Sisto, and the script comes from Oscar winner Nicolas Giacobone (BIRDMAN, 2014). You should know it's not the typical narrative arc. One day John, with the help of his shiny new drone, locates a long-forgotten unfinished bunker in the nearby woods. The next thing we know, John has drugged his family and dumped them in that hole. That's not a spoiler, as it's shown in the trailer. When Mom (Jennifer Ehle, SAINT MAUD, 2020), Dad (Michael C Hall, "Dexter"), and sis (Taissa Farmiga, "American Horror Story") awaken in the mucky pit, they are frightened and confused. When John appears to deliver food and blankets, he offers nothing in the way of an explanation.

As movie watchers, we have been conditioned to expect this type of situation will lead to significant violence. Instead, we watch as John steps into his newfound freedom. His image of adulting is what he's observed from his parents: classical music, wine, cooking, milking the ATM, and driving the car. He has bypassed the coming-of-age stage, passed "go", and moved directly into his version of adulthood. We know this can't end well, but John is thirteen and isn't mature enough, regardless of this manufactured freedom, to plan ahead.

This is a wealthy family living in a glass house ... an unmistakable metaphor. A sense of entitlement and pursuit of money has distracted the parents from focusing on the importance of teenage years. Whether they realize this looking up at him from the bunker is debatable. John's story is told by a mother to her daughter, an unusual sequence that acts as an awkward framing device. Cinematographer Paul Ozgur delivers terrific camera work with the house, the bunker in the woods, and John's odd demeanor. This is an unsettling film that is more psychological drama than thriller or character study. It clearly borrows from two masters, Michael Haneke and Yorgos Lanthimos, but falls short of their best work (as you'd expect). Still, the film has a certain style, and reminds us that the moral to the story of a teenager's actions often boils down to "don't do that".

Opens in select theaters and On Demand August 6, 2021.

This had a lot of good things going for it: a decent plot idea, good actors, nice cinematography, creepy vibe, a creative take on the whole coming-of-age genre. But it totally fell flat. It didn't go anywhere. Parts were just completely pointless and it took itself waaaay too seriously. In the end it had no discernible cohesion. Not really worth a watch.

I wish I could have given this a higher score. It was well acted, interesting, great cinematography, interesting story idea and crap ending as far as I'm concerned. Sadly, society is breeding more and more of these soul less VOIDs that look like children, but there must be a POD in the back yard where something alien made this Creepy, empty, inhuman copy left with this family. And in this case, I totally do not get what was supposed to be his end game. His family are nice, educated and caring people, he wants for nothing and if some answers had come I could have rated this higher. I can't say more without spoilers, but I'm Pissed off. I've met kids like this and see more and more of them with each passing year and it frightens me. But that ending??? Seriously, Come on.. just Ridiculous and Senseless. Worth a one time watch if you don't mind being disappointed at the end and left with 1,000 questions and feeling Pissed off. Or if your a soul less human Void too, then you may enjoy this. But if your a caring person with a heart, this movie will leave you feeling angry and dumbfounded.

I'm all for films that make the viewer think and draw their own conclusions or apply whatever the story is trying to say to their own interpretations of life and the world. This is a Haneke-esque parable consisting of two parallel but inverted storylines, one of which obviously consumes the majority of the run-time (hint: the one in the title).

Ahhhkay....so here we go. This one has excellent production value, a pretty decent cast (Dexter lol!), and good direction and cinematography. I really appreciated the soundtrack/score as this type of modern synth creepiness is often way overdone, but not in "John and the Hole."

Sorry to those who totally panned it with 1-Star reviews because "nobody would let their kid do that, he'd be in therapy" or "the ending made no sense" It's just not possible to draw those conclusions from this movie if you know anyone with kids that age in, well, this day and age - or if you remember being that age yourself. Perhaps that's one of the film's lessons anyway - Maybe parents *should* be more keenly observant of behaviors such as John's. Clearly this was a family of means, and they - unlike the vast majority of Americans - could afford psychotherapy or medical observation of their son. But sessions cost anywhere from $100-$300/hr and aren't covered by most insurance, IF you're lucky enough to have insurance in this country. But that's also part of the film's point and perspective: that of upper-middle class bourgeoise detachment from the real worries and experiences of life.

Sorry to get bogged down in that. On with the review...I'm glad I didn't have to shell out the dough for a theater experience (including drinks, popcorn, parking, etc.) to see this film. In fact I'm not even sure what format its theatrical release happens to be ("art house", major chain, small release, etc.) but I can tell you that it belongs in "art house" theaters. It's just too oblique for many viewers.

Overall, I appreciated it and found "John and the Hole" thought-provoking and scary at the same time. It wasn't intended to be "realistic" in terms of real world potentialities, actions or outcomes. It was a vague dive into the mentality of modern juveniles and what exactly defines "adulthood." For that reason, and that I wasn't ever tempted to get up or turn it off, I give it 6 Stars. Just know you're not signing up for a typical movie viewing experience and keep your expectations low. On the other hand, if you're a fan of "art house" cinema, you'll probably find many aspects of this film enjoyable as I did.

As for the ending, since so many seem to be completely unable to free themselves from their own frame of reference (see: the same people who reflexively give Haneke movies terrible reviews because they don't take the time to digest them in the context of contemporary American cinema), I feel compelled to defend it here. This wasn't supposed to be a realistic outcome; it was intended to be absurd, as was the rest of the film. That it's hidden behind a veil of upper middle class normalcy, excellent film-making and a languid, sometimes boring story arc is exactly the point of the exercise. It's also demonstrated in the parallel story that attempts to frame the ridiculousness of the main plot, at least from the point of view of an adult with a well-formed intellect and in-check id. In that sense it's a fantasy of adolescence in which "adulthood" consists only of going through a few boring and repetitive motions every day with no real moral , ethical or well-defined desired outcome - and - in the modern bourgeoise existence, little to no consequence to the outcome of those motions.

This film is a disappointing example of an intriguing premise, good acting, good cinematography, and strong sound design and score not adding up to anything worthwhile. The sum is much lesser than its parts.

I am also disappointed in the writing, as Giacabone penned both Birdman and Biutiful, two astoundingly original film concepts. I suppose the difference here is that, instead of a master like Innaritu at the helm, we have first-timer Pascual Sisto who is more interested in mood and pastiche than creating a cohesive experience. Haneke or Lanthimos this ain't, and it's heavy borrowing from each winds up getting in the way of what could have been a more interesting film.

I am sure that on second viewing, one might peel back another layer or two, but I don't feel the desire. I may check out Sisto's next project, but this one was kind of a bust for all of its technical achievement.