Skip to main content

I know what you've got. You've got a gateway to hell under your house. And that is really cool.

The Hole
(2009)

(SPOILERS) There was a six-year gap Joe Dante’s previous feature and The Hole (it was also six years between Matinee and Small Soldiers, five between that and Looney Tunes: Back in Action), although the intervening period had seen one of his most acclaimed efforts landing on the small screen, the Masters of Horror episode Homecoming. While both ostensibly saw the director return to the horror genre where he made his name, they would also tread lightly on a feature that had been his stock in-trade: comedy. That isn't to say The Hole doesn't have laughs, but it’s much straighter than anything the Dante had assembled for the big screen since… Well, The Howling probably.


And, while there is much to enjoy in The Hole (perhaps not so much next door neighbour Haley Bennett’s continued Sid James-esque innuendos with regard to looking at her neighbours’ hole, such that it’s entirely appropriate when a talking Cartman toy is later lowered into it), there is a nagging feeling that it's absent the key ingredient that makes a great Joe Dante film a great Joe Dante film. It’s much more traditional in form than The Howling, both in its quality of humour and narrative.


As a piece of filmmaking, though, this is as surefooted and confident as the director has ever been, and the work of new collaborators such as composer Javier Navarrete and cinematographer Theo van de Sande seamlessly complement his past form. It’s a shame then, that its biggest innovation passed virtually unnoticed. Unreleased in the US at a time, when post-converted 3D was at its zenith (stand up, or rather hang heads in shame Clash of the Titans and Alice in Wonderland), The Hole was unable to billet itself a proper cinematic tenure, and died an undeserved death. Since it won the 3D award at the Venice Film Festival, this counts as a particular scandal, with Dante’s approach to the canvas being one of extension rather than in-your-face tactics (the opening pull back from a car exhaust pipe recalls the macro opening to Innerspace).


There isn't all that much you’d say stood out in Mark L Smith’s screenplay (recently of The Revenant, and formerly of Vacancy), which charts a familiar line in creepy goings-on in the basement and confrontation with one’s worst fears. There are bits of everything from The Gate to A Nightmare on Elm Street to Flatliners and Ringu here, albeit within a very PG-13/12 certificate safety zone, and Dante creates a potent atmosphere, particularly during the first two-thirds, before the exact nature of the encounters becomes clear and the force loses its gusto.


An early shock moment is perhaps the best, as Teri Polo’s mum comes home to find the kids watching the playback of a video they made by plunging a camera into the bottomless pit. They turn as one to greet her, while she is oblivious that the distorted eye staring out from the screen represents anything ominous.


The logistics of the endless dark are nicely sketched out, from the creepiness of being home alone with a clown doll (of course) or a Ring-like girl (actually played by a boy, Quinn Lord) shuffling inexorably forward in a dimly lit ladies’ room. A scene in the open air, as the trio frolic in Julie’s (Bennett) swimming pool, is filled with menace; unseen hands pull Lucas (Nathan Gamble) below, and Dane (Chris Massoglia) glimpses an immense figure above through the water. Then there’s the sketch book, pages pieced together as giant frieze, recalling The X-Files episode Conduit. While these are all played for chills, Dante’s playfulness gets the better of him with the clown attack; it begins throwing out one-liners, as if transformed into a demented amalgam of Spike and Chip Hazard.


Unlike Final Destination, this force doesn't just keep on coming. Once fears are conquered, the threat ceases. Dane’s, that of his father, forms the climactic set piece, as he dives into the hole to rescue his brother. There, he enters an intermittently effective, semi-virtual dreamscape (the over-sized furniture is definitely a plus). While the picture lends itself to the menace returning (mom’s afraid of the monster under her bed), the brevity of the picture suits the slight composition and idea.


Dante wastes no time getting the hole open, swiftly and economically establishing the new home of the family and their next door neighbour Julie (Bennett). As usual, he casts his picture, and especially his young faces, very naturally. Dante’s facility for eliciting strong performances from his youthful casts is much undervalued, and this joins the ranks of Gremlins, Explorers, Eerie, Indiana and Matinee as another home-run. There’s never any question that this family unit, with its shorthand and intimacy and teasing, is a real one, and likewise Dante has an easy affinity for the teenage condition, its neuroses and obsessions. Also, as with other films in his oeuvre, the kids occupy a markedly separate world to the oblivious adults (even the oversized kids in The ‘Burbs do).


Creepy Carl: Nobody built the hole. The hole has been there since the world’s first scream. And now it’s going to come for us. The darkness is going to come for all of us.

While the Dante repertory company take a backseat (Dick Miller’s pizza guy doesn't even get to speak), space is reserved for the formidable Bruce Dern, reuniting with his ‘Burbs director two decades on, as the afflicted former resident of the house (the one who secured the locks), now – in a vision recalling the pink office taking up an otherwise deserted floor in Innerspace – hiding out in his rundown glove factory. It is, naturally, called The Glove of Orlac. We find him surrounded by every form of amped up light bulb, sketching furiously (Dane also doodles, and we can see this tendency to the toonish in Dante’s heroes as far back as Billy Peltzer). We don't learn what becomes of him, but a little Bruce goes a long way.


What might rather sadly be a sign of the times, or a filmmaker perhaps past his best, is that The Hole feels a little lacking for a Dante film. While he adapts to the material with the flair of one of Creepy Carl’s finely fashioned gloves, one has been spoiled to expect inimitable subtext, in-jokes permeating every scene, wry commentary on social and political mores, and an overriding knowingness. The Hole, like Homecoming, can be taken at face value, and while it’s an accomplished, entertaining effort, it says something about the force of Dante’s personality that we have come to expect more from him.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

Do you know the world is a foul sty? Do you know, if you ripped the fronts off houses, you'd find swine? The world's a hell. What does it matter what happens in it?

Shadow of a Doubt (1943) (SPOILERS) I’m not sure you could really classify Shadow of a Doubt as underrated, as some have. Not when it’s widely reported as Hitchcock’s favourite of his films. Underseen might be a more apt sobriquet, since it rarely trips off the lips in the manner of his best-known pictures. Regardless of the best way to categorise it, it’s very easy to see why the director should have been so quick to recognise Shadow of a Doubt 's qualities, even if some of those qualities are somewhat atypical.

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019) (SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

I think you’re some kind of deviated prevert.

Dr. Strangelove  or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964) (SPOILERS) Kubrick’s masterpiece satire of mutually-assured destruction. Or is it? Not the masterpiece bit, because that’s a given. Rather, is all it’s really about the threat of nuclear holocaust? While that’s obviously quite sufficient, all the director’s films are suggested to have, in popular alt-readings, something else going on under the hood, be it exposing the ways of Elite paedophilia ( Lolita , Eyes Wide Shut ), MKUltra programming ( A Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket ), transhumanism and the threat of imminent AI overlords ( 2001: A Space Odyssey ), and most of the aforementioned and more besides (the all-purpose smorgasbord that is The Shining ). Even Barry Lyndon has been posited to exist in a post-reset-history world. Could Kubrick be talking about something else as well in Dr. Strangelove ?