Canadian director Kyle Edward Ball ran a YouTube channel and asked subscribers to put their nightmares in the comments then recreated them. Ball then took that concept and combined it with autobiographical elements to make “Skinamarink” (2022), his first feature length film. He shot it in his childhood home and revealed that the children characters are substitutes for him and his sister. 

In 1995, siblings four-year old Kevin (Lucas Ball) and six-year-old Kaylee (Dali Rose Tetrault) wake up at home alone with only the television to comfort them, so they decide to camp out in the living room. Objects begin to disobey the laws of physics. Doors, windows, and other objects vanish and reappear. The kids start hearing other voices: their parents and an unknown, deep rumbling voice. 

If I have a bone to pick with “Skinamarink,” it is the different implications between the preview and the finished product. The preview implies a time slip between 1973 and 2003, which does not happen in the film though who knows maybe I missed something. The actual film feels as if it was shot using seventies film stock.

A lot of people take drugs before seeing, but not yours truly. My audience was annoying. People were talking during the showing and not in a good way that enhances the experience. While “Skinamarink” is longer than I would have preferred, it was not so long that people had to keep getting up to go to the bathroom or get refreshments, which they soon dumped on the floor before consuming a bite. At least they did not spill drinks. It was also clearly considered a date movie among my fellow moviegoers with the guys grinning in anticipation of their partners being frightened. 

Ball frames “Skinamarink” in a way that only shows a fraction of a room, usually at an odd angle. You will never see a human face except for in cartoons or toys. Most of the dialogue consists of children’s whispers or the television being too loud. There are audio jump scares like pops or a violent frame change. Instead of paint drying, you will spend a lot of time peering into darkness wondering if there are squiggles or if your mind is imagining something that may or may not be there like an autostereogram, aka Magic Eye Pictures. The key to watching this film is an overactive imagination.

Ball cites Chantal Akerman as one of his inspirations so imagine if she decided to deconstruct and reassemble “Poltergeist” (1982), “The Blair Witch Project” (1999) and Mark Z Danielewski’s first novel, “House of Leaves” without any adults or explanations. If you do not like open ended films, you probably should not watch this movie because you will be aggravated. Also parents who can no longer watch movies or television shows with children in danger should probably skip it. The idea of leaving children alone for an extended period of time regardless of the circumstances is inherently problematic because kids cannot take care of themselves.

I want to enjoy the actual experience of watching a movie, and I never lost myself in “Skinamarink.” My analytical brain stayed on so it was not the most frightening film that I have ever seen. I was more interested in thinking about the film than watching it and still am. There are some subtitles, but I wish everything was subtitled. The film really is a Rorscharch test for the viewer because Ball leaves the film open to interpretation. I cycled through a variety of explanations.

S

P

O

I

L

E

R

S

First explanation: Kevin hit his head, is seriously injured, does not understand what is going on, and becoming isolated in his body thus why he cannot remember faces or things are not adhering to reality because it is as if he is living in a dream. He is in a coma. 

Second explanation: Kevin is the monster. Like a kid, the monster likes things to go his way, do things repeatedly, reacts negatively to refusals, leaves no room for other people’s desires, lacks empathy. When he hit his head, he manifested powers that he does not understand and became fractured. It is wish fulfillment gone wrong—imagine a life where you never had to go to bed, could watch television all the time, no adults. For me, the way that Kevin flipped lights, and the way that the monster behaves in a similar rhythm was the key.

Third explanation: there is a monster, a being from a different dimension, terrorizing the family and holding them hostage in the home. The monster is then a metaphor for familial abuse where the victims cannot imagine an escape or anyone noticing from the outside. Any attempts to get outside help are thwarted. There is no escape. Everything is upside down because the family is not normal, but you must exist somewhere, so you get used to the abnormality and try to coexist with it. Kaylee obeys her parents instead of asking, “Where the hell have you been!?!” The monster commands Kevin to hurt himself, and off screen, blood splatter from Kevin keeps rewinding and fast-forwarding, but Kevin still tries to work with it by making suggestions and letting it tuck him into bed at night. When there is no escape, and no one is coming to save you, you must work with the monster.

While I would prefer the first two explanations, the third makes more sense. When the father tells Kaylee to look under the bed, it is a comment that a child would normally ask a parent to do so inappropriate in this context. Also the parents tell the kids to come upstairs, put themselves in danger, for them then characterize their feelings towards the children as love. It is not love, but as children, they do not have the broader experience and exposure to interrogate their parents’ actions and disobey them. Also the mother’s rationalizations to Kaylee hints at furtive actions that kids cannot grasp, are inappropriate and mom is spinning it to ameliorate the impact on the kid. When the mother tells Kaylee to go downstairs, Kaylee does not. The fact that no one has a face indicates that no one can be trusted—they hide their true face from each other. The first objectively frightening moment happens immediately thereafter. The dissonant noise crescendos, cracking is heard and a black indeterminate limb breaks through the darkness. 

I find it puzzling how so many people walked away thinking that the mom was the abuser. Something did happen to mom. Dad does minimize harm. I am not going to single either out though usually guys are the perpetrators, and moms are at most the co-abuser or an enabler who fails to choose their child over themselves or their man. “Skinamarink” gives no clear answers.

The film is dedicated to Joshua Bookhalter, the assistant director, died during post-production. How? No idea and please let me know if you know. It is an autobiographical film so it feels relevant. Also how are the Ball siblings doing now? Yikes.