Ett hål i mitt hjärta

Moodysson's latest is an intense and disturbing barrage of shocking imagery and an unflinching view of broken people who form an attachment built as much on hatred as it is on need for companionship. The film takes a claustrophobic look at four people who live in a small flat; a porn film making man, his son and the man and woman who 'star' in his porn films. Moodysson blurs the boundaries between the porn they film and their bizarre antics to create a bewildering world of obsession a Marat Sade of contemporary mores. This is a profoundly disturbing film; ugly and noisy but with occasional moments of calm and beauty amongst the ugly sex scenes and close ups of heart and genital operations and doll mutilation. It seems that Moodysson is angry and wants to scream his anger full into the viewers face - neither easy or essential viewing but challenging and interesting.

Mr. Moodysson made a flick here that has very little rhyme, but a lot of reason. No, wait...it has a lot of rhyme, but zero reason. No! It's...uh, there's a little bit from...hmmm.

As soon as A Hole in My Heart began, I realized taking that little bit of Nyquil probably wasn't the greatest of ideas. But luckily, I'm a tough guy, and I managed to keep focus on Lukas's lil experiment. Because that's what this was kinda, an outlined experiment. Well, I think so anyways.

For me, I split the movie into separate aspects. One ideal is for the three adults (the Dad, his friend and the porn actress) of the movie, and the other is for the son. With the three adults your shown immaturity, delusion, confusion, and just a whole wave of emotional problems. Not far away is the son; overly thoughtful, a shut-in, quiet...and simply appears the polar opposite to the three on the other side of the door. And whatever story this movie was trying to present, in my opinion, lies within comparing the two sides to another other, and hoping they would find a common ground. And even that was hard to do, as all the characters (even the son) were rather unlikable, and all relied on pity.

Was the film intriguing? Yeah, I guess. Was it well directed? I thought so. Was it entertaining? Not really. Is there a deeper meaning than simply comparing the people to one another, and not trying to look at them as useless human beings? Maybe. But if you really want to do such a thing, I think you're already fighting an uphill battle.

From my point of view there's not much to learn from this film, as it was mostly full of negative things. And I'm curious to know Lukas's point of the film. I would guess it was a very simple idea. I could easily say this film's underlying message is to get an education. But I could be dead wrong. Watch this flick if you like to ponder about movies afterwards. Don't if you don't.

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.

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.

I've seen (and loved) Together and Lilya.. - this film is different, and will not appeal to the vast majority of people.

I'm not sure about the themes; that these characters ultimately need each other? The dialogue, although perhaps improvised, is at least free from cliché. The editing is a little annoying, but not really distracting. It's mainly the soundtrack that grates, with its casual use of white noise and drone. The film is essentially a day in the cramped flat filming Rickard's amateur (gonzo) porno movies, while he tries to connect with his introverted goth son / the son has a tentative yearning for the girl / the girl discovers that these people who can be so hurtful are still better than 'normal boring ugly' people / and the actor who is slightly insecure and has a confusing & frustrating habit of falling asleep, but has quite a close relationship with his friend the director. There's more to it (particularly with Rickard, the father/porno director), and the ending is characteristically upbeat (relationships resolving/issues in the open), coming off a real emotional low-point.

The film itself occasionally jumps forward & back in time, and there are a few dream sequences. The surgical cuts (literally and editorially) are scattered through the film, along with blurry out-of-context 'organic' shots, and a parallel version of what's happening in the porno film, as performed by Barbie and Action Man. I'm just not 'deep' enough to understand (or care) what all these bits mean.

Yes, the film is pretty graphic - not so much in the sex, but there is nudity on all counts (although not in a sensational way), there are intimate surgical shots, and one quick scene following a food fight which may make you feel ill (and will burn itself on your memory, whether you want it to or not).

Although I can't be bothered trying to understand or analyse the use of the surgery bits and other possible motifs, the film is mostly pretty straightforward and - if you stick with it - a fairly 'okay' plot/resolution develops by the end of the film. It just takes a while for the characters to reveal enough of themselves, because they all start out as fairly unlikeable.